Churches provide much more than just money. Solace, peace, love, community etc... I'd say this is more important than money.

I used to be a Christian. There are a lot of bad sides of Christianity and that is why I left. But it does help many people and after studying Buddhism I understand how the right approach to Christianity can bring a lot of peace to believers:

Unconditional love. Many people grew up made to feel they had to earn their parents' love.

Letting go of control. You can't control everything in life. Whatever is going to happen is up to God now.

Forgiveness. When people ask for God's forgiveness, it helps them to forgive themselves.

Gratitude.

I feel these things should exist without God. That is, they can be helpful to non-believers too. But I am having a hard time creating secular versions of these.

I think the root of the problem lies in the fact that God here is an abstract entity with whom the believer communicates but no such abstract entity exists for non-believers (duh!).

May be some form of general artificial intelligence can fulfil this role in the future?

Real people can fulfil this role too but they are probably not abstract enough. edit: And hence not "powerful" enough (to forgive, to protect etc.).

Just spit-balling here. Also not trying to offend anyone here.

The purpose of being a Christian is to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself. In if you wonder how far the love of your neighbour stretches, the goalpost has ben set at the very end: Love your enemies.[See: Mark 12:30-31 and Matthew 5:44] And this follows and is natural because God is LOVE [1 John 4:7-21].

I have a hard time believing AI will fulfil this role. For would it be optimized for gains here and now, or actions of sacrifice now that will be payed back fully in an everlasting life and that is built on faith? :-)

And I must admit that love is hard and I mess up a lot! But i try to do the same as is written here:

"Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."[Philippians 3.13-14]

What about all the people who are considered "sinners" ? There's no love for them in the Bible

If that was the case, I would be the last in line! ;-)

But God's whole purpose was to save sinners like me and you through Jesus Christ: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us". [1 John 1, 8-10 NKJV]

So hell is not a thing ? i'm confused ?

I feel like you must have never read the bible, or even interacted much with a christian, to say this.

EVERYONE is a sinner. That sin is then forgiven.

But who ends up in hell then ?

Churches provide love? As long as you are one of “them”. Go into your typical small southern church if you and your spouse are different races - many church goers still believe that “miscegenation” is a sin - including Bob Jones University.

I wonder how many churches would be as “loving” if “Adam and Steve” walked in?

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/deja-vu-all-over...

Not only that, but the idea that we should have some sense of mercy, grace, forgiveness, etc that even permeates secular society. It’s an important value, and we’re seeing it break down as mobs of allegedly grown adults harass strangers for decades-old off-color remarks made as children, or for remarks made by family or acquaintances, or etc. I think Hitchens said that he didn’t like Christianity, but it may have been a bulwark against worse things. I think he was speaking about extreme Islam, but I think there are other pseudo-religious toxic philosophies (and thus toxic behaviors) that Christian ethics defend against as well.

I'm sure Hitchens was against all dogmatic religions and ideologies.

The point of his quote is that he realized they weren’t uniformly bad. I’d go further and suggest that it’s not even possible to have a successful secular society without a religious cultural substrate, at least not for very long. I don’t mean this as a slight against atheists or agnostics; only that religion is eminently functional to the extent that we don’t find significant societies that exist without a significant religious substrate in any place or time. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s certainly an interesting question in my mind.

I really hope you are wrong. Science is relatively new, it's just a matter of time until we figure out how to solve it all without faith, god and dogmatic religion. One thing's for sure, the most developed countries in the world are running away from religion.

Science isn't incompatible with faith, but moreover, I think you're making a mistake by assuming that perfect rationalism is optimal. Many atheists believe religion serves an evolutionary function by motivating people to irrationally put the good of the group over the good of the individual, and the mechanism in question is the belief in a deity or karma system that punishes injustice and rewards justice. Note that this doesn't mean that a perfectly rational individual would never work for the good of the group, but he would only do so to the extent that the good of the group benefited him (as is often the case); however, he wouldn't put the good of the group above his own good--he wouldn't die for the group, for example (and of course there are many less extreme examples, especially under the rubric of "tragedy of the commons"--cheating, stealing, etc when the odds are good that one can go unpunished). Of course, many non-believers have died for things they believe in, but in doing so they were acting irrationally. So perfect rationality is actually less optimal than certain kinds of dogma, but not all of those "positive dogmas" are religious.

One interesting question is whether those "positive dogmas" have "staying power"--will they be around as the moral potency of religion fades from a culture (especially by decades and centuries)? Maybe an indicator would be a comparison of aggregate generosity between religious and a-religious people?

“I don’t like the design of your pacemaker; mind if I take it out and use the parts to build you one I approve of” is not a sales pitch that works often.

Makes me sad that anyone would compare religion to a pacemaker, if this is true then your country surely is lost

I’m pretty fiercely atheist, but the churches around me are where the local homeless get food and a reprieve from the cold. If you closed that today and diverted the money to a secular replacement, there would be a pile of bodies by the time it was operating.

No there wouldn’t. Not if it’s government driven (as it should be)

> Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-char...

You don't find it strange that so many people are homeless ?

We already have secular alternatives, state welfare in many countries. A worse value for money system would be hard to imagine, populated with clock watching, work-to-rule types who actively use bureaucracy to avoid work.

So your telling me that churches are value for money? Could you give an example of one of these state welfare alternatives?

St Vincent de Paul is the one I'm most familiar with. Time and again you hear accounts from people who were refused welfare for one reason or another and turned in despair to the SVP. They're not an alternative but they are invaluable to the people who fall through the cracks in society. They rely on donations from churchgoers and all are unpaid volunteers.

> So your telling me that churches are value for money?

Incredible value for money - 90% of the services provided by our local church are staffed by unpaid volunteers who go above and beyond.

If it becomes a government service, it will instantly become a political target for budget cuts and regulations that will exclude people from getting help.

As an example, I have someone in my extended family that works for one of the state governments for employment services, and from the stories they've told me about how the department has been slashed and burned and forced to work with a skeleton staff, I'm not surprised at all that when the pandemic hit that everyone was having a hell of a time signing up for unemployment or getting the money they're supposed to be getting, and desperately need right now, or even just reaching a live person to talk to.

And of course that just makes the department look badly run, in people's eyes, which makes the average citizen even more likely to allow more money to be cut from them, because they just assume it's well funded already and "they suck at their jobs, what are we even paying their salaries with our tax dollars for? They should be fired!"

Whereas churches have a bit of a shield from that, at least, especially from the GOP in the US, who aggressively and consistently fight against social programs and non-defense government services otherwise, but their voter-base tends to be very religious, so they have an incentive not to hurt churches in any way.

You can’t create secular alternatives to religious organizations, it’s like creating an alternative to a bar with no alcohol. You get something vastly more different than that would suggest. Churches and other religious organizations are based on a belief in something higher or transcendent that is lacking in secular organizations. All attempts to provide them have been miserable failures. Sunday Assembly was the last major attempt in the US, failed, humanist associations have a long history of being for comically tiny minorities compared to even extremely marginal religious communities. Communities require people to show up, regularly, whether they feel like it or not, with family.

There was a wonderful article I read ages ago and can no longer find on the history of communes in the US over the 20th century. Not one secular commune managed to perpetuate itself across generations without turning into something vastly less communal. Most religious communes failed too but the Amish and Hutterites are practically ethnic groups based on religion and there are lots of smaller groups.

> it’s like creating an alternative to a bar with no alcohol

In many muslim countries in the world there are plenty of places like this because alcohol just isn't a thing.

Yeah, let's just give up on making the world a better place. We might never reach Utopia, but we can for damn sure get closer especially if we free ourselves from dogmatic thinking. Do you really want to settle for better than nothing?

Communism is what you are looking for... where all people are putting in all of their effort to the common goodwill with government guiding the effort.

That system that failed everywhere and people found the excuse that it was not applied right, but the idea is sound. I lost my younger years living in such a regime, thanks but no thanks.

Ah yes, clearly the only two options here are all-in capitalism or communism. Definitely no room in between those two points for anything more nuanced.

Aside from being plain condescending or outright rude, you've shut down discussion about any approach that may be different. A better response would have been to ask them to suggest something, or show a case (another country, say) where this was already done.

Define "works".

> Or maybe create a system where people don't have to rely on churches and rich people for charity.

Being handed everything by a welfare state is de facto charity for the recipient. The biggest difference is that charity is morally superior because it's voluntary.

Besides, the US has a very large welfare state. I get a big kick out of people pretending the US doesn't have an epic scale, highly dysfunctional, poorly operated, welfare state, that doesn't spend trillions of dollars per year. I just can't figure out what they're spending $8.1 trillion on every year. Must be roads and military. Where'd all that magic trillions of dollars in stimulus spending come from? That laissez-faire Capitalist US system surely. Those free market $1,200 checks raining from the sky.

Without exception every welfare state - including the US, which has one of the most progressive tax systems - heavily relies on rich people to pay an extremely outsized share of taxes.

How many trillions are churches spending, in dollars and hours, to provide basic services? And that with a dose of magical thinking, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and appeals to authority.

IME even the most progressive churches can do a lot of 'soft' damage to already hurting people. Secular services certainly have their own faults, but at least they don't have so many invisible strings attached.

Please also keep in mind that secular services compete for resources and mindshare against religious institutions. It becomes a self reinforcing argument on the right that we need to keep the latter because the former is so bad.