As most EAs would point out, I also think a clear distinction ought to be made regarding the quality of giving. Aggregating donation figures on a per person basis can be quite misleading, especially when many believers donate a sizeable portion to their own congregation (although I know many of those studies have been controlled for this). Could it be that the skeptical are simply more discerning with their money?
Say 5 religious people donate ~$200,000 between them to train five seeing eye dogs (~$40,000 x 5) in the developed world.
As most EAs would point out, I also think a clear distinction ought to be made regarding the quality of giving. Aggregating donation figures on a per person basis can be quite misleading, especially when many believers donate a sizeable portion to their own congregation (although I know many of those studies have been controlled for this). Could it be that the skeptical are simply more discerning with their money?
Say 5 religious people donate ~$200,000 between them to train five seeing eye dogs (~$40,000 x 5) in the developed world.
5 irreligious EAs donate $200,000 to cure blindness in the developing world for thousands of people (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/putting-charities-to-the-test/?_r=0), which actually cures the blindness.
You can see where I'm going here. At what point are we conflating sacrifice with morality?