Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Happens When You Remove Faith
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 180 (403049)
05-31-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
05-31-2007 11:38 AM


Opie gone good?
Taz writes:
Even in this day and age, we have examples of mass murders and genocides that result in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people dying.
A Christian fundamentalist may say that society is basically bad and needs salvation
A secular humanist may say that society is basically good and needs to abandon religion and exclusivism.
What does Taz say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 05-31-2007 11:38 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 05-31-2007 4:50 PM Phat has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 180 (403050)
05-31-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rahvin
05-31-2007 3:47 PM


But there are penalties for not eating. There aren't any penalties for not being empathetic (while also not being bad).
It is not an ability and a motivation.
Penalties are irrelevant. Read this, from here:
Well, it looks like we need to get more data before we make a definitive conclusion.
But, the implications of the conclusion could blow my argument right out of the water
I think the idea that, without some deity, we would all convert into selfish, immoral anarchists is complete horseshit.
I’m not arguing that idea.
But the evolution of empathy IS, in fact, what allowed society to form, despite the fact that it seems the trait evolved long before humans were walking around.
Point taken.
That's bullshit. There are a lot of non-sociopathic people that are not empathetic and are only good because there are penalties for the bad behavior.
You got rose colored glasses.
Actually, I'd say ALL people who possess no ability to feel empathy are, in fact, sociopaths.
I shouldn’t have put that word only in there. There are a lot of people that have the ability to feel empathy, but are not empathetic and are good because of the penalties that are not sociopaths. I’m not saying these people have NO ability to feel empathy, just that they are not empathetic or don’t care to use their ability. People who are unable to feel empathy are sociopaths by definition.
I think you're just afraid to call people who feel no empathy sociopaths because, by your own admission earlier, it may in fact make you one of them.
But I do have the ability to feel empathy so I’m not a sociopath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rahvin, posted 05-31-2007 3:47 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 05-31-2007 6:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 48 of 180 (403053)
05-31-2007 4:30 PM


Monkey sphere
All this talk about empathy made me remember this website:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
The basic premis is that you can really only truly care about a limited number of people (those within your sphere) and the closer in your sphere that they are located, the more empathy/caring you have with/for them. It's an amusing read and has a link to a research article where the pull out the people have a sphere of about 150 other people.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 180 (403055)
05-31-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jazzns
05-31-2007 3:51 PM


It seems kind of weird that one of the knee jerk reactions from the openly religious is to say, "heck yea I would be bad/selfish/immoral if there was no god" and that once they think about it for a minute they realize that this is not really true at all.
Some bad/selfish/immoral behavior feels pretty good or provides positive effects. For people of faith, the big eye in the sky is one more reason, and sometimes the only reason, to not behave that way. When you take away that reason, the benefits to the bad behavior seem to outweigh the penalties.
quote:
Oh, there ”s no god? You mean, I can go sleep with a bunch of whores with no penalty? Let’s do it!
Its not that hard to extrapolate that to include other stuff too. But when you think about it, you’re not going to go and do things that are very obviously immoral. And those things are easier said than done.
before the religious slowly learned that there are good non-religious reasons to give, volunteer, etc.
I think its more about the reasons for avoiding the bad behavior than for doing the good. The non-religious reasons to give and volunteer are much more obvious than the non-religious reasons for not fornicating. But then, I do that anyways, so .
That brings up two points.
Maybe fornicating is not wrong.
Maybe it is and you need god to understand why.
When you take god out, you’re only left with the first.
Even without god, I can think of reasons to avoid fornication, but not for the immorality of it. Which is why I do it, I guess.
The claim being examined is that, " religion is good because it keeps me from a monster". That is not a good argument. Your latest post just softened it up with words like "hypothetical" and "more asshole-ish".
All you have to do is conflate hypothetically more asshole-ishness with being a monster and badda-bing, same thing
But it is still shocking I feel that this is the initial reaction that religious people have when confronted with the idea of abandoning their faith.
It probably comes from being told that things, that have no obvious non-religious reason for being immoral, are immoral because god says so.
It not that hard to start lumping in things that are obviously immoral and say that you would do those too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2007 3:51 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 50 of 180 (403057)
05-31-2007 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2007 2:40 PM


Re: reasons to love, reasons to hate
quote:
Now - can we talk about those damned commie-French? I think it wise we don't even begin to discuss the shifty asians or women or shifty asian women. Before we do though, us Stretfordians have got some beef to sort out with the Heaton Park posse.
  —Modulous
I have no idea what your talking about . Looks like a joke that is over my head.
Which is a shame as this is precisely the point that unifies many of the apparently differing opinions around here.
We are fairly confident that there are not too many sociopaths. But at the same time, there appear to be so many tossers around. What is going on? Back to Mod's earlier statement:
quote:
If you knew there was no God would you rape and kill your neighbour for the contents of their house? Probably not. If you lived in a small tribe, you might go and kill the other small tribe over there and steal the contents of their house. Not only are you not going to be punished for it, but it doesn't necessarily scream against your humanity to do it.
  —Modulous
The point is the tribal grouping gets small... very small: gangs and sub-gangs. Within the sub-unit there is empathy, a desire to belong, and even altruism. Outside the sub-unit it doesn't matter - it's another tribe.
The goal as far as I am concerned is to broaden the tribal boundary - become a citizen of the world. It isn't about gaining altruism, it's about applying it to larger and larger sets of the world population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2007 2:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 51 of 180 (403058)
05-31-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
05-31-2007 4:06 PM


Re: Opie gone good?
Phat writes:
A secular humanist may say that society is basically good and needs to abandon religion and exclusivism.
What the hell does this mean? Since when did secular humanists not care about acts of mass murders and genocides in other parts of the world?


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 05-31-2007 4:06 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 06-04-2007 10:31 AM Taz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 52 of 180 (403068)
05-31-2007 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
05-31-2007 11:38 AM


We absolutely do empathise as part of our human hard-wiring.
What changes is, as you have demonstrated, how large the groups we empathise with
And just because Someone can empathise doesn't mean they choose to act with empathy. There are often other considerations that compel people to choose to act otherwise.
I mever meant to imply that human social dynamics were simple!
[qs]Just as we evolved to feel hunger in order to motivate us to take on fuel for the operation of our bodies, we evolved to feel empathy in order to motivate us to live together in cohesive social groups.[/quote]
quote:
I don't think so.
So tell me why people (especially mothers) nearly universally report feeling very strong anxiety when they see their children in pain?
Were they merely taught this by their society?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 05-31-2007 11:38 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 05-31-2007 7:55 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 180 (403071)
05-31-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2007 11:44 AM


In the way you've described yourself, it appears to me that you are an immoral person who is behaving well only because he fears being punished.
quote:
That’s how most people are. Take away the punishments or penalties for the bad behavior and people are going to be bad.
Maybe the people you know...
quote:
Ever been in a mosh pit? Its practically lawless in there. There’s guys in there groping girls and picking pockets. If your in a mosh pit trying to be nice to everyone, you’re going to get groped and robbed.
Or how about Mardi Gras or a riot? People go balls to the walls when there’s no penalties for their behavior.
Correction.
Mostly, it is young males who behave poorly, especially when they are under the influence of drugs or adrenaline or in a mob mentality situation.
I'm not talking about mobs or mosh pits. I'm talking about everyday, mundane life.
But as an aside, I have indeed been in a mosh pit or two. At the Lilith Fair, for example, I was never groped even though I was surrounded by lots of lesbians and quite a few men. I just went to a great English Beat show and was right down there in front dancing and jumping with everybody else and didn't have a problem. I even left my purse unattended at my seat.
quote:
Most of the people I encounter are not “moral (good) persons” as you described above.
Maybe because like attracts like?
I mean, seriously, maybe you repell all of the nice people because you, yourself are a selfish asshole and they can sense that? Then, all that's left are the jerks.
I can usually spot such people a mile away and take pains to avoid dealing with them.
I do understand that where you live makes a big difference in the general quality of the people you encounter. However, I have lived in big and small cities and villages and there are all sorts to be found in all of them, both good and bad. I have never had a problem finding lots of good folks to be around.
I really don't mean to be harsh here. It is nothing you haven't already said about yourself.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2007 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by anastasia, posted 05-31-2007 6:37 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 180 (403073)
05-31-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2007 4:13 PM


quote:
There are a lot of people that have the ability to feel empathy, but are not empathetic and are good because of the penalties that are not sociopaths. I’m not saying these people have NO ability to feel empathy, just that they are not empathetic or don’t care to use their ability.
How can someone choose to not feel something, I wonder?
I mean, you can learn over time to not be strongly affected by something, like someone who kills and butchers food animals not freaking out, but how do you choose to not feel something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2007 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-01-2007 4:53 PM nator has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 55 of 180 (403076)
05-31-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by nator
05-31-2007 6:02 PM


nator writes:
Correction.
Mostly, it is young males who behave poorly, especially when they are under the influence of drugs or adrenaline or in a mob mentality situation.
I'm not talking about mobs or mosh pits. I'm talking about everyday, mundane life.
For that matter, it is mostly males of every age that account for the majority of criminal behaviour. Hey, wait a minute, I thought you said we hard wired to feel empathy? While I won't argue that, it seems that we are also hard wired, especially males, to not give a darn about what others feel.
So what is the problem? Why are young males hard-wired to be so careless? I suppose only older females are the ones who have that empathy gene?
Do you see what I am saying? Even with the known consequences of fornication, AND a belief in God as motivators, there are some drives that are so hard-wired that they are irrefutable. Being nice to people, that is a character developement. Morality is learned, remember?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 05-31-2007 6:02 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 05-31-2007 6:46 PM anastasia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 180 (403078)
05-31-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by anastasia
05-31-2007 6:37 PM


quote:
Do you see what I am saying? Even with the known consequences of fornication, AND a belief in God as motivators, there are some drives that are so hard-wired that they are irrefutable. Being nice to people, that is a character developement. Morality is learned, remember?
And I will ask you to remember that human social interactions are c o m p l i c a t e d.
It is always a mix of nature and nurture.
(I think it is so cute that you call it "fornication". It makes me smile.)
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by anastasia, posted 05-31-2007 6:37 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by anastasia, posted 05-31-2007 9:54 PM nator has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 57 of 180 (403090)
05-31-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by nator
05-31-2007 5:48 PM


nator writes:
So tell me why people (especially mothers) nearly universally report feeling very strong anxiety when they see their children in pain?
I don't think it's empathy. If it's empathy, they'd be feeling strong anxiety for other people who are in pain as well. But clearly, the Rawanda genocide demonstrated that people care for their children while not care at all for other people's children.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nator, posted 05-31-2007 5:48 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 05-31-2007 9:35 PM Taz has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 58 of 180 (403129)
05-31-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
05-31-2007 11:38 AM


Tazmanian Devil writes:
The nazis somehow got the overwhelming majority of their people to throw their conscience away
They, like many of those behind mass genocides, did not make people throw their conscience away. Instead, they changed the external view of the other group (basically, convincing people that Jews etc were not really human, or as human, as Aryans). This didn't affect their conscience (a Nazi would still have been moral towards fellow Germans), but stopped it from being applied to the minorities (Jewish, gays etc).
In essence, it's the reverse of animal rights activists, who convince themselves that animals are closer to human than they really are, so are worth protecting.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 05-31-2007 11:38 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Omnivorous, posted 05-31-2007 9:53 PM Doddy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 180 (403132)
05-31-2007 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taz
05-31-2007 7:55 PM


Like others have already said, we all feel empathy for some group, unless we are sociopaths and feel no empathy at all.
Some people's group is very small, and other peoples' is very large, and still other peoples' fall somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
What you have been talking about isn't empathy, it is "in-group/out-group" thinking.
Everybody has empathy for the people they consider a part of their "in-group".
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 05-31-2007 7:55 PM Taz has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 60 of 180 (403136)
05-31-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Doddy
05-31-2007 9:17 PM


Living with the animals, down in Jungle Land
Doddy writes:
This didn't affect their conscience (a Nazi would still have been moral towards fellow Germans), but stopped it from being applied to the minorities (Jewish, gays etc).
In essence, it's the reverse of animal rights activists, who convince themselves that animals are closer to human than they really are, so are worth protecting.
The inverse of your final analogy seems truer to me. Just as the Nazis regarded the Jews et al. as nonhuman, enabling inhuman treatment, most people deny our commonality with other animals, enabling inhumane treatment.
So far, life seems rare in this universe, and all of it worth protecting against cruelty.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Doddy, posted 05-31-2007 9:17 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024