Summary
Christianity is the world's largest religion, and Christians are statistically more generous than the general population, which makes them a worthwhile group to appeal to. While conflicts exist between predominant EA secular philosophy and Biblical philosophy, the marginal actions recommended by EA are largely in accord with Christian ethics.
Christians are statistically generous and have lots to give
Religious generosity is a well-established phenomenon. A report released in 2017 indicated that in the US, 62 percent of religiously affiliated households gave to charity, relative to 46 percent of non-religiously affiliated households. Excluding donations to religious organizations, religiously affiliated households still donated the same amount or more relative to non-religiously affiliated households.[1] EA is not foreign to attempts to harness this generosity: see GiveDirectly's zakat-compliant fund, oriented towards Muslims. When it comes to Christians, they make up the largest religious group worldwide, and Christians are the dominant group in high-income western countries.[2]
Christianity also provides a spiritual and moral grounding for giving. As far as I can tell, EA doesn’t have a widely accepted system for figuring out how much income a person should actually give–it’s more of a methodology for giving wisely (at least according to Luke Muehlhauser’s description). While this is extremely useful, people also need a system to grapple with their moral obligation to others, which religions like Christianity provide. (I believe that–for many people–religion provides a more satisfying and intuitive system than moral philosophy, which has no spiritual grounding. But this is largely a personal conviction based on anecdotal evidence.) All this means that the application of EA principles would be more marked and immediate on Christians, considering that their religion implies a certain moral resolution to be generous.
The appeal goes both ways
There is already some involvement between Christianity and EA in the form of EA for Christians and organizations like Christians for Impact. However, I think a more active engagement could be fruitful – in effect, EA should evangelize more. EAs should be eager to discuss their principles with their Christian friends and family, especially Christian EAs, who should push for EA principles to be discussed in their churches and within their communities. At the same time, the EA community should also be ready to seek common ground with Christians interested in EA but skeptical about its secular philosophy.
Three apparent philosophical conflicts between EA and Christianity which aren't actually a big deal
The overlap between Christian values has previously been covered, so I will keep this discussion short. Christianity advocates for generosity, especially to the poor, and at times to the extreme through the ideal of self-sacrificial love.
However, despite these moral commonalities, Christians and EAs may feel uncomfortable discussing their ideas due to a seemingly unbridgeable gap in philosophy. In my opinion, these differences aren’t too troublesome in practice, and there are good biblical appeals for most actions promoted by EA.
Factory farming isn't any more biblical than animal rights
At first glance, the issue of animal rights seems to be an impasse. The Bible provides a basis for exclusive human rights in the form of the “image of God”, and permits the cultivation of animals as a fact of human life.
However, in its suggestions for what animal consumption should look like, the Bible is more in accord with EA recommendations than one might expect. Some Christians (notably, Seventh Day Adventists) have read the Bible as promoting a predominantly plant based diet.[3] And the mass raising and slaughter of animals in the form of factory farming is more a product of modern consumerism than an appeal to a Biblical standard. In ancient Israel, the common people had meat very rarely and only on special occasions.[4] The extent to which we currently cultivate animals for our enjoyment, it could be argued, is more indicative of our greed than anything else. Regardless of whether it is our fundamental right to use animal products, how we treat animals when they are alive is indicative of our moral character, making it relevant for Christians to consider whether factory farming is really what God wants.
Working on AI, existential risks, and biosecurity is not averting the end times
Focusing on the elimination of existential risks may seem like an issue to Christians. Isn’t the apocalypse a good thing to Christians, since it will signal God’s arrival? Or does the apocalypse’s association with God make it unbiblical to believe that humanity can cause its own destruction?
Fortunately, these questions are not really relevant. As Scott Alexander has argued, most of the actions we can take on existential risk issues are just common sense. After the COVID-19 pandemic, is it unreasonable to expect that humans can cause a significant amount of suffering and death through bad biosecurity practices? Would it not be unreasonable to allocate some time and resources to reducing this risk? Similar arguments apply to nuclear weapons and even AI. Leaving aside the question of the apocalypse entirely, we know enough about humanity’s current capabilities to see that we can cause massive suffering to each other. And I think that Christians and EAs have the same stance when it comes to avoiding unnecessary suffering.
Spiritual charity is relevant to doing good
It’s admittedly hard to justify missions and giving to the church from a purely EA perspective. The expected value equation will look different if you believe that conversion gives someone eternal life and happiness, and there’s unfortunately no way to RCT salvation.
Still, for the EAs, there is something to be said for the intangible benefits of spiritual charity. Churches are important avenues for the cultivation of good values in communities (and while churches can promote ideas that are harmful, the ideal church is a place where generosity, love, and other values conducive to improving others’ lives are promoted). In addition, the grace and purpose given by religious conversion can break cycles of violence and help heal the stolen dignity of the neglected. While difficult to measure empirically, these are areas that purely material interventions may not be able to reach.
As for Christians, EA in its current form is not a condemnation of all other uses of money. A tithe to your local church might not fall under the impactful umbrella, but that does not mean that the EA baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater. When you give to the poor (as Jesus commanded), you can do it in a way that benefits more of the poor. EA is an exhortation to become more active in the process of giving, to be in touch with the impact your charity is actually making. It is a call to remove any complacency in charity, which any generous person can benefit from.
Conclusion
The Bible may seem to be in conflict with the predominant philosophy of EA, but as it turns out, people trying to be as good as possible tend to come to some of the same conclusions. A greater engagement between EAs and Christians might lead to some challenging discussions, but I believe that this is a good type of challenge, one that will cause growth. As a Christian, my beliefs and actions have evolved and improved significantly as I have grappled to align EA and my philosophy, and I hope that many others can benefit from the same experience.