Yes but I think their priority should be giving maximally effectively. So they should support giving where most effectively spreads the gospel. But probably that shouldn’t be the only place that they give—the Bible seems to suggest it’s very important to give to the poor, not just to evangelize to them.
I don’t know where else to put this comment so I put it here because this is closest to my view.
After reading these comments as a committed church-going Christian who also happens to donate to EA charities (like you implied because Jesus commanded to help the poor materially and not just spiritually, so it’s more rule based) it feels funny that non-Christians—at least I think the commenters here are non-Christians—so often think they know what Christianity means better than people who actually believe the tenets of Christianity.
My personal opinion about Jesus and God when it comes to this subject is that individuals Christians aren’t supposed to go to heroic lengths to figure out and calculate how to utilitarianly maximize the amount of quality adjusted life years in Heaven and minimize the same when it comes to Hell, but that it all depends on God who is already omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent so individual Christians don’t have to be, and Christians just follow Jesus and His literal commandments as best they can.
I think the only way to rescue the Bible as an EA-compatible document is by arguing that everything other than evangelism is just there to make evangelism and missionary work more successful. You need to give to the poor, follow the ten commandments, etc. because otherwise there’s no Christianity to spread. But ultimately these are instrumental, the ultimate goal for every action is to keep souls out of the infinite-disvalue place.
Of course, but then you’re left with a much weaker claim, this small subset of Christians with a heterodox, uniquely EA-compatible theology should be effective altruists.
Well, all Christians will need to explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance. In my view universalists have the best answer, but whatever one’s answer is, it can explain why to give to effective anti-poverty charities.
But this is what the first commenter’s argument is, that’s why Christianity would be incompatible with EA. A truly EA, non-universalist Christianity does not explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance because by their lights it clearly is. And yet the Bible does say to do all these other good but non-maximally-effective things! Unless, as mentioned, they’re all weirdly instrumental.
Yes but I think their priority should be giving maximally effectively. So they should support giving where most effectively spreads the gospel. But probably that shouldn’t be the only place that they give—the Bible seems to suggest it’s very important to give to the poor, not just to evangelize to them.
From my understanding, biblical morality is generally deontological, not utilitarian.
I don’t know where else to put this comment so I put it here because this is closest to my view.
After reading these comments as a committed church-going Christian who also happens to donate to EA charities (like you implied because Jesus commanded to help the poor materially and not just spiritually, so it’s more rule based) it feels funny that non-Christians—at least I think the commenters here are non-Christians—so often think they know what Christianity means better than people who actually believe the tenets of Christianity.
My personal opinion about Jesus and God when it comes to this subject is that individuals Christians aren’t supposed to go to heroic lengths to figure out and calculate how to utilitarianly maximize the amount of quality adjusted life years in Heaven and minimize the same when it comes to Hell, but that it all depends on God who is already omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent so individual Christians don’t have to be, and Christians just follow Jesus and His literal commandments as best they can.
I think the only way to rescue the Bible as an EA-compatible document is by arguing that everything other than evangelism is just there to make evangelism and missionary work more successful. You need to give to the poor, follow the ten commandments, etc. because otherwise there’s no Christianity to spread. But ultimately these are instrumental, the ultimate goal for every action is to keep souls out of the infinite-disvalue place.
You can also go the way more plausible route and simply be a universalist!
Of course, but then you’re left with a much weaker claim, this small subset of Christians with a heterodox, uniquely EA-compatible theology should be effective altruists.
Well, all Christians will need to explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance. In my view universalists have the best answer, but whatever one’s answer is, it can explain why to give to effective anti-poverty charities.
But this is what the first commenter’s argument is, that’s why Christianity would be incompatible with EA. A truly EA, non-universalist Christianity does not explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance because by their lights it clearly is. And yet the Bible does say to do all these other good but non-maximally-effective things! Unless, as mentioned, they’re all weirdly instrumental.