Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds :
http://now.msn.com/living/0504-atheists-compassion.aspx



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 09:55PM by Susan I/S.

I think there is a good possibility this could be true. I think religious people think that God or some Christian organization will eventually step in and take care of the problem. Also, if you've already given money to your church, you feel you've already done your part.

Atheists and agnostics see a need, and feel it is up to them to solve the problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 09:55PM by Susan I/S.

as expressed in the actual report on the findings.

Clearly, more work needs to be done. And perhaps in a worldwide setting, rather than just on one country.

Well, it was almost as if the researchers were not convinced by the findings? Or thought the findings were not telling the whole story?

>Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds.

>That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than it other groups.

Re-reading it, is it that atheists give as they feel sympathy for victims, whilst people of religious faith give because they feel their God/s would expect it?

The two quotes you posted says the basically that Atheist are more motivated by compassion, religious people less motivated by compassion.

The question is about motive, not about actions.

Which is more compassionate, those that give to the poor because they were told to do so, or those that give because they were compelled to do so by their own feelings?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 10:32PM by MJ.

matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as expressed in the actual report on the
> findings.
>
> Clearly, more work needs to be done. And perhaps
> in a worldwide setting, rather than just on one
> country.

Indeed.

As I've mentioned a few times before, my wife and I spent
several years with Buddhists in South Asia. They are declared
atheists, and "compassion" is one of the cornerstones of
their social system.

Does that make them any more caring for others, than are their
Hindu neighbors? Perhaps, in a general sense -- when measured
in terms of quantified compassion extended to each stranger,
or some such weird measurement.

On the other hand, the Hindus could be very intense in their
passion for others -- even for people that they barely knew.
If measured in terms of "love per instant," then I'd say
that the Hindus win, hands down.

But, perhaps some of our resident RFM posters would lump
both the Buddhists and the Hindus together as "religionists,"
and therefore as deluded persons, or persons not functioning
at the same high level of rational thinking as a "pure"
atheist.

I just made up that last identifier. I'm not sure myself just
what it means. But I'm thinking of a person like Lenin, who
publically promoted atheism, and would not have been caught
dead inside of some religious institution.

I'm curious to hear the personal experiences of such a "pure"
(non-religious) atheist, who has compared his/her own degree
of compassion with that exhibited by theists and/or religionists.

UD

To paraphrase Sam Harris, Who is more compassionate, those that give of themselves because they feel for the person or those that give of themselves because they are compelled to do so by their religion?

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To paraphrase Sam Harris, Who is more
> compassionate, those that give of themselves
> because they feel for the person or those that
> give of themselves because they are compelled to
> do so by their religion?


A guy tried to convince me of a "fact" that he very much
believed to be true -- and I'll try to summarize his view.

Say you see a mother run into a burning house in an heroic
attempt to save her endangered baby. Isn't that a prime
example of altruistic love? -- of boundless compassion?

My debate opponent derided that entire interpretation. In
his view the mother was doing nothing more than acting
upon an inborn instinct to preserve her species. Evolution
in the distant past had favored mothers who protected their
young, and so they passed down their genetics to modern
human beings. Nothing remarkable about that. Nothing worth
our wasting our time talking about. End of conversation.

I tend to interpret love, compassion, altruism, empathy,
etc. in very different terms. I would go so far as to
rank and rate one society against another, by the way that
those most in need of help are cared for.

But I realize that my viewpoint is not necessarily the same
as the one(s) held by other rational beings. I can be wrong.

In my experience, I love because I myself was loved -- and
that wrought a change in my nature. Some elements of some
religions echo this realization in ways meaningful to me. I
see value in that.

I cannot well explain that "value;" but I suppose I'd try
to express it in terms that others could comprehend, if they
pressed me on the matter.

As for how much I might extend love to others, had I never
experienced love myself -- I cannot begin to guess about
that scenario. Perhaps it would sound very hollow to me, if
some religionist tried to compell me to obey the teaching.

UD

altruistic love and inborn instinct are one in the same. I doubt the mother gave any thought the the species when making her decision. She went in to save her child not the species.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 10:43PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> altruistic love and inborn instinct are one in the
> same. I doubt the mother gave any thought the the
> species when making her decision. She went in to
> save her child not the species.


I'll try give a more stark version of the controversy --
(which I've given in the past and which is probably still
on the web somewhere).

During the Japanese occupation of Guam, the leader of a
small native village was confronted by an army officer,
who accused the locals of stealing from the Japanese
soldiers' food supply. Unless a confession was forthcoming,
the entire village population would be massacred.

Faced with this dilemma, the head-man volunteered himself
as the culprit, and was summarily executed.

Now, he had NOT performed thefts himself, and had NOT asked
anybody to steal from the soldiers. But somebody obviously
had to die, as a punishment, and he offered up himself.

My debate partner (if I can use that term) was unimpressed,
and argued that there was nothing at all heroic in the
cited example -- that it was just one more instance of
species survival, and that there was no "compassion" therein
demonstrated, which might be taught as human "love."

I saw value in the old Chamorro head-man's personal sacrifice.
I felt that it was truly a demonstration of love for his
people, in which he offered his own life to save others,
whom he cared for deeply.

My debate opponent saw my interpretation as just one more
instance of "religious delusion" and "sentimentalism."

The Guam chief was a Roman Catholic -- but I suppose that
an atheist in his position might have acted in the same way.

Question is -- from whence did that compassion arise?

UD

What ever his claims are, they are his claims. Compassion is valid and is certainly a product of evolution. Yes, compassion has to do with species survival, but it is still compassion. Your debate partner may try to relabel the compassion, but the truth be known, NONE OF US knows the motivations for the act you describe. Both of you were wrong for trying to label it one way or the other to further your arguments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 11:12PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What ever his claims are, they are his claims.
> Compassion is valid and is certainly a product of
> evolution. Yes, compassion has to do with species
> survival, but it is still compassion. Your debate
> partner may try to relabel the compassion, but the
> truth be known, NONE OF US knows the motivations
> for the act you describe. Both of you were wrong
> for trying to label it one way or the other to
> further your arguments.


Perhaps you are right.

Trying to get back to the original subject of the thread,
more or less -- how would an atheist's answer differ from
that of a theist/religionist...

if their young child asks: "Why do you love me, Daddy?"

UD

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 12:34AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


OK then -- backtracking to my contrast of Buddhist and
Hindu differences.

I can readily picture a Hindu child asking such a question;
and I have some experience in knowing the possible answers.

I cannot envision a Buddhist child asking the same query --
unless, perhaps, he picked it up from Hindu playmates.

So, perhaps a relevent question would be, How does Hindu
(read theistic) "love" differ from Buddhist (read atheistic)
"compassion?"

UD

You still are not getting back to the original subject.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You still are not getting back to the original
> subject.

OK -- one last try.

My father was a dedicated atheist. He did not just believe
there was no God -- he KNEW for a fact that all supernatural
claims were utter delusion -- and taught that to his kids.

My mother was raised in a religion and remained faithful
to many of its tenets, though she stopped attending any
group functions out of respect to my father's wishes.

I was thus able to experience years of care-giving from parents
of two very different philosophical backgrounds.

There were times I sensed compassion from my father -- like
when I spilled boiling water on my leg and he cried along
with me, in my pain. But it often seemed to me that his
empathy was just as strong for others, outside of our family.

My mother's lovingkindness far surpassed the care-giving
I experienced from my atheist father. Her interaction with
me seemed to be non-conditional, nearly always encouraging,
and a witness to the love she herself had experienced.

Had my father been able to erase my mother's metaphysical
professions more completely, I do not think that her
care-giving would have more resembled his own. I suppose
that my mother's personal experience of unconditional love
was what she passed on to me. ---- But I cannot prove it.

The only extended experience I have had in an atheistic
society was my time spend among Nepalese Buddhists. That is
why I cited my thoughts on that group and its viewpoint.

With my own parents, I can draw upon a much longer, constant
experience. So, hopefully, that reflection speaks more to
the original topic of this thread, than my time in Asia.

UD

It is what you are using.

Never mind that you are also talking about the emotional differences between a man and a woman. Such differences are well documented. Your last example does not make a valid case.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is what you are using.
>
> Never mind that you are also talking about the
> emotional differences between a man and a woman.
> Such differences are well documented. Your last
> example does not make a valid case.


All I can relate is what I have encountered. I cannot
pretend to be an objective expert upon the topic. Perhaps
you have the professional education and training to speak
to a wider scope of compiled information than I can.

But I stand by my assertion, that had my mother turned
totally atheist, her care-giving to us kids would not have
devolved, along with her "conversion."

I truly believe that her experience (in receiving love),
made her interaction with others something different from
that of my father -- who almost never mentioned the word,
and who grew up without having that experience himself.

But -- that's all I can say. If you wish to add some
final words, please do so. What you have contributed so
far, has not helped me learn anything useful.

UD

And I thought we were discussing that article. From my perspective, I thought it quite presumptuous that you thought your little stories trumped the evidence in the article. Still do think that.

Compassion: Sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion

"Little stories," eh? Ah, the smell of passive-aggressive derision in the morning.

Where is your compassion? I found some value in Uncle Dale's "little stories," but I have the capacity to see things from another's point-of-view. Do you?

If you are going to demand that replies meet a rigid structure that Boyd Packer would vigorously champion, you might want to state that outright in your OP.

To the topic of the thread: I've witnessed the dutiful "compassion" of quite a few religious folks who feel they are obligated to contribute as an investment in blessings and/or eternal rewards, and I've witnessed many atheists/agnostics who contribute without promise of any kind of return-on-investment. Of course, there are exceptions.

I wonder if the extent of the compassion depends on the kind of need. For instance, is an atheist more likely to show compassion on an Internet message board when they don't like the content or format of a reply on a thread they started? When they want to express a differing opinion, are they generous and compassionate in the words they choose while still stating their views, or do they verbally eviscerate anyone who doesn't agree with them?

Thanks for sharing the link. It was an interesting read.

Realizing you can't stereotype.. and there are many exceptions to the general rule.. but in my experience not only are Atheists more compassionate.. they are more honest and kind as well.

My apologies to the Christians on the site.. there are many many notable exceptions, of course.. but I sure see a lot of Christians that do A LOT of dishonest things.. and then rationalize that Jesus will forgive them. I think they feel their believe in Jesus.. gives many of them literally a license to steal .. so to speak.

And talk about arrogance. I can't even begin to discuss that issue.. the more fanatic a Christian you are.. the more arrogant you are.. there aren't even many exceptions to that rule..

They know best. They know better.

If I was offered two invitations, one to attend a party full of religious people, the other full of atheist, I would go to the party full of atheists every time. Not just because I am an atheist but because it is my best chance of being accepted for who I am as a gay man.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I was offered two invitations, one to attend a
> party full of religious people, the other full of
> atheist, I would go to the party full of atheists
> every time. Not just because I am an atheist but
> because it is my best chance of being accepted for
> who I am as a gay man.

MJ, I think I might agree with you. At least if it were some religious people I know.

Though we'd need to ensure that there was some good beer. Timothy and I would expect nothing more, nothing less. And, of course, a good supply of whatever you like to drink. ;o))

Seems to me that what this study shows is what Jonathan Haidt calls the moral intuition of "care." It acknowledges that religious people give for other reasons, which also bears out Haidt's thesis that conservative religious people operate out of moral intuitions in addition to "care," including "respect," and "loyalty." It appears to me most posters to this thread assume the "care" motive for giving is somehow a more valid reason to give, an assumption, if true, I am not sure I agree with.

In part of the study experiments were run in which participants were primed by a video showing a compassion-inducing video atheists gave the most money in an economic game. I think it would be interesting to prime participants with a compassion-*reducing* video and see how each group reacts.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 12:20AM by robertb.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> In part of the study experiments run in which
> participants were primed by a video showing a
> compassion-inducing video atheists gave the most
> money in an economic game. I think it would be
> interesting to prime participants with a
> compassion-*reducing* video and see how each group
> reacts.

And this would prove what about compassion? Yes, your whole post was to say that religious people gave for reasons other than compassion, that was stated in the article as well.

But in discussing compassion and only compassion, it seems atheists win out.

MJ Wrote:

>
> And this would prove what about compassion?
>
> But in discussing compassion and only compassion,
> it seems atheists win out.

I don't know what it would prove, MJ, but what I am wondering, because atheists acted primarily because they felt an emotional connection and the religious participants gave for other reasons, if the atheists would give less than the religious if negatively primed. Or would both be affected in the same proportion? I don't know.

So, what is it atheists "win out" if they are more compassionate? Self-satisfaction? Because atheists don't believe in a god to reward them.

Or does it bother you that this claims that it is Atheists that are more compassionate?


It seems you are trying real hard to redefine all of this to the advantage of religion. Nobody is disputing that religious people may give for other reasons.

The simple matter is, when it comes to just compassion, this artificial says atheists are more compassionate. Why does that seem to bother you so much?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 12:33AM by MJ.

Good questions, MJ. Three things, I think. First, my personal interaction with believers in my life has been positive. I've seen a number of acts of compassion over time. Second, my experience on RfM with some atheists has jaded me so I've come to expect what I consider uncivil, ungenerous behavior.

So, I just emotionally don't want to give credit to atheism much now, even when it may be due. I'll can try to correct that, but, honestly, I am less sympathetic to atheism than I used to be.

Third, what I read from the study, I have question I raised in addition to some others.

You may reply that what I feel is "not logical" or even fair. I'll grant that.

I have an atheist friend on another forum who feels the same way because of her experiences with radical atheists. She says they are similar to the fundamantally religious in many ways and she really cannot deal with the even though she does not believe.

Your one friend is right, scientific study is wrong. Bah.

Why do dogmatic people always have to rely on the word of ONE PERSON to trump studies that deal with dozens?

Seriously, trying to rely on the personal testimony should be the last thing someone on this board should resort to.

No, MJ, I am describing the views of one person. They are valid for her and they are valid for me. I don't like dogmatic people and that includes atheists and believers.

How Mormon of you.

No, MJ, not all atheists, Just the ones like you. As I said, my friend is an atheist but she isn't a black and white thinker who cannot accept that religion does a lot of good as well as bad. She is not filled with hate for all religion and she is informed and educated.There are many atheists like that, but unfortunately there are several here who can be pretty obnoxious.Good night.

Really she was talking about me? Your friend knows nothing about me. Shame on you for such nasty attack tactics.

I was talking about my view of you, not hers although I suspect she would agree with me.

The fact that I have you attacking me yet again just proves to me I am on the right track.

Thought so. To bad scientific evidence is contradicting your limited view of the world. It certainly would not be the first dogmatic belief to fall.

Or maybe we just get sick of the in your face atheists. BTW, I have no idea which group is more compassionate and there are atheists I like, but this is one study and I am not taking it to the bank so to speak.

Pay back is a bitch, eh bona?

My in your face attitude is NOTHING compared to the in your face attitude of the preacher in this video.

http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2012/05/04/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-takes-punch-your-gay-kids-pastor-to-task/

Yes, I will be in your face and in the face of anyone that makes excuses for the abuses done in the name of RELIGION.,

As I said, I don't like in your face religious people either, but I guess you missed that part.

When was the last time you heard an atheist leader preaching child abuse?

I will gladly stand and take the snide remarks of the likes of you about my atheism to stand against the abuse of religion, an abusive tradition that has gone on for MELANIA.,

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When was the last time you heard an atheist leader
> preaching child abuse?
>

Answer: Harry Hay, gay activist, atheist and proponent of NAMBLA.

Do I really have to get a list of the abusive things religious leaders have done?

BTW, I have met Harry Hay. He and I have our disagreements but his support of namba is greatly misunderstood. He does not support the mission of namba or what they stand for, but he supports their right to free speach. I do hope you understand the difference.

You asked when was the last time I heard an atheist leader preach child abuse, so I named the last time.

I believe Stalin and Pol Pot abused a few kids as well as adults in their tie and I am sure there are others. Child abuse iexists in all segments of society

I believe Stalin and Pol Pot abused a few kids as well as adults in their time and I am sure there are others. Child abuse iexists in all segments of society

Harry hay was not preaching child abuse, he was preaching free speech. He was preaching that NAMBA had a right to advocate lowering the age of consent, not child abuse.

Are you really that desperate to prove me wrong that you have to stoop to lies and misrepresentations?

By the way, science and atheism are not synonymous. That point continues to escape you. Something else that irritates me and causes me to distrust some atheists.

The article didn't say how this conclusion was reached and I didn't see any scientific evidence. There may be some, but I am not taking this short internet article as the final word on the subject

You expect it to be good enough for us.,

I name the scholars and know their arguments. This article didn't say anything abou t who ran the study or how they reached their conclusion. Maybe atheists are more compassionate, but I'd like to know more.

Nuff said.

And not about the study. BTW, I never claimed that atheism and science were synonymous that is you rudely putting words in my mouth.

Thanks for the display of intolerance.,My Gwad, a study dare said that atheists are more compassionate than religious people and you fly off the handle. Pthhht.,



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 02:23AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the display of intolerance.,My Gwad, a
> study dare said that atheists are more
> compassionate than religious people and you fly
> off the handle. Pthhht.,


Once again, quite obviously, you're the one "flying off the handle."

In all my years on the 'net I've never seen someone who was more glaringly blind to their own projections as you are, MJ.

+1 All MJ wants to do is fight.

But hey, go defend religion and all those preaching abuse.

Robert came in with a rant. When he was asked "And this would prove what about compassion?" He replied "I don't know what it would prove" He was ranting so hard that he didn't even have a clue what he was saying! He was just throwing out stuff that he didn't even know the meaning of.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
! He was just throwing out stuff
> that he didn't even know the meaning of.

This is what I mean by projection.

Robert was reasonable. MJ is the one ranting at Robert, you and me and anyone else who disagrees with him. The sad thing is that he can't even see it.

Hope you feel like a big brave girl for all your nastiness. I have explained why I thought Robert flew off the handle, if you want to let your hate blind you to that, that is your problem and it is a big one.

I asked him what it would prove he said he did not know. He explicitly said he did not know the reason behind what he was suggesting. Sorry, not projecting.

I answered your question in three parts, MJ, in a calm tone. I included a description of my honest feelings in non-abusive language. So, in characteristic MJ fashion, you attacked me. Regardless, what I said is how I feel. *You,* MJ, are one example of why I have come to see atheism so negatively.

I understand you are not representative of all atheists, as there are atheists on the board I respect. Unfortunately, they don't post nearly as much as you do. The most persistent example of atheism I have on RfM is you.

I know you don't care how I feel about you or that you affect how I feel about atheists, but there you are.

+100

So you can go to bed feeling so much better about yourself.

The article already talked about religious people giving for other reasons. This is again why I think you were flying off the handle. You were going on about something already addressed

OK. What I noted in my response to the article was the results seemed to me to fit the frame provided by Jonathan Haidt. I also specified within that system *how* it seemed to fit.

I wasn't merely repeating, I was trying to put the results in a frame that was brought up here on RfM in other threads. I also had a question about the experiment.

I also don't see a problem with speculating how something might fit. You and I often have an argument over my impulse to try to put something in a wider frame and you wanting to stick to a narrower line of thinking.

As I understand the term "flying off the handle" it means to rant. I wasn't ranting. I was thinking about the article within another frame. I also felt there was a value judgment on the motivations for giving I don't think I agree with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 03:03AM by robertb.

Now you are trying to divert attention to that rant onto a different post.

I simply meant I didn't didn't think what I was saying constituted *proof*. I wasn't ranting; I was saying I'm giving an opinion or a point of view and not offering *proof.*

The post in which I answered in three parts afterward was in answer to your question.

Saying "I don't know what it would prove" is not the same as saying "what I said did not constitute proof." For on thing the time frame is all wrong, on one statement you are talking about what something WOULD prove in the other you are talking about what your statement did or did not prove.

Frankly I am a little offended that you thought I was stupid enough to buy that.

MJ, I am completely confused as what you trying to get at. If you have a question, please ask without all the accusations, and I will try to answer. Otherwise, I am just dropping this because you are starting to make it about how I'm trying to get you rather than a misunderstanding and I'm not going there with you.

The fact that you can't give a consistent answer is not my fault, but pointing out the inconsistencies of your answers should NOT be viewed as a accusation.

Oh, and please don't try to claim a statement about how I felt was an accusation.,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 03:27AM by MJ.

A few takeaways from another theist . . .

The study shows that the atheists are more driven by their emotions. The study implies that if there had been no emotional appeal, the atheists may have given less or nothing at all.

The religious respondents had a more reasoned response to the stimuli. They gave from a broader understanding rooted in their paradigm of right and wrong. The study showed them less swayed by the emotional tug of the presentation.

Given these two different responses, it's clear the study (perhaps unintentionally) was structured to better serve those that respond from a spiked emotional response. The study relied upon a series of "hit and run" single scenario tests.

On the other hand, I'd be very interested to see a side-by-side long term comparison of the giving habits of the two groups. This study seems to suggest that theists may well have more lasting power since they are not as easily moved by emotions.

Anybody aware of any such studies that compare the charitable giving habits on a yearly basis between the religious and non-religious? That would be interesting to see and a more relevant measurement of the compassion of the two groups.

Thank you. I was trying to get at that and you did a much better job of it.

The artificial was talking about an emotional response, compassion. Imagine that, atheists having an appropriate emotional response to a stimuli and not having it when there was no stimuli. Then a theist trying to use reason to explain not having an appropriate emotional response. Amazing. Maybe the article should be titled "Atheist have more appropriate emotional responses.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 03:44AM by MJ.

From Jonathan Haidt:

"I have italicized the two sections that show ordinary moral thinking rather than scientific thinking. The first is Dennett's claim not just that there is no evidence, but that there is certainly no evidence, when in fact surveys have shown for decades that religious practice is a strong predictor of charitable giving. Arthur Brooks recently analyzed these data (in Who Really Cares) and concluded that the enormous generosity of religious believers is not just recycled to religious charities.

Religious believers give more money than secular folk to secular charities, and to their neighbors. They give more of their time, too, and of their blood. Even if you excuse secular liberals from charity because they vote for government welfare programs, it is awfully hard to explain why secular liberals give so little blood. The bottom line, Brooks concludes, is that all forms of giving go together, and all are greatly increased by religious participation and slightly increased by conservative ideology (after controlling for religiosity).

These data are complex and perhaps they can be spun the other way, but at the moment it appears that Dennett is wrong in his reading of the literature. Atheists may have many other virtues, but on one of the least controversial and most objective measures of moral behavior—giving time, money, and blood to help strangers in need—religious people appear to be morally superior to secular folk."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html

There is follow up discussion with Haidt and others on this and other points.

http://www.edge.org/discourse/moral_religion.html

When looking closer, the money they give to "charity" is really going to the LDS church. How much of that really goes to charity work?

Again, the fact that they give does not address the emotional response of compassion. This is not a squabble over who gives more, this is about an emotional response.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-21/atheists-charity-donations/52146680/1

Quote from the article:

"studies show [atheists] typically score in Scrooge territory. In 2003, social scientist Arthur C. Brooks found religious persons 25% more likely to donate money than secularists, and 23% more likely to volunteer."

But is that real charity? How much of that really does charity work?