Joseph Lowery's Racist Prayer

[jphelmet]

I find this kind of questioning to be extremely narrow minded. Human empathy alone could be grounds for setting morals, treat fellow humans the way I would want to be treated...

where does human empathy come from? if you are (or whoever) is a true atheist, than there is nothing to this life outside of the physical realm.

if we are truly products of the evolutionary mechanism, and natural selection - where does empathy come into the picture. if there is no higher power (i am not speaking specifically of the Christian God- but any higher power as atheism denies), then why would you ever be empathetic? for
natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak- these things are perfectly natural. if that is all there is, then on what basis does the atheist judge the world to be wrong, unfair, or unjust? you can claim empathy as your reason for being upset over the horrors of this world, but what is your basis for being empathetic? where did you learn empathy if you are the byproduct of a cruel, violent system that has no regard for empathy?

 

[VintagePunk]

where does human empathy come from? if you are (or whoever) is a true atheist, than there is nothing to this life outside of the physical realm.

if we are truly products of the evolutionary mechanism, and natural selection - where does empathy come into the picture. if there is no higher power (i am not speaking specifically of the Christian God- but any higher power as atheism denies), then why would you ever be empathetic? for
natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak- these things are perfectly natural. if that is all there is, then on what basis does the atheist judge the world to be wrong, unfair, or unjust? you can claim empathy as your reason for being upset over the horrors of this world, but what is your basis for being empathetic? where did you learn empathy if you are the byproduct of a cruel, violent system that has no regard for empathy?

From the Friday night dispatch thread:

Perhaps we are all the same, but very often, non-believers are accused of amorality and having a bleak outlook, and that's simply not the case. People have actually said to me "if you don't believe in an afterlife, what's the point?" Very frustrating. Made me want to scream "This! This is the point! The world. Life. Our relationships. That's the point!" Isn't that enough reason to be grateful, and to want to live a good life? It is for me.

This is exactly the kind of crap I was talking about in my post above.


jphelmet, why do you need the promise of an afterlife, or the directive of a supernatural being to have empathy? Maybe that's a better question. Because obviously, atheists are quite capable of having empathy without the window dressing.

 

[jphelmet]

From the Friday night dispatch thread:




This is exactly the kind of crap I was talking about in my post above.


jphelmet, why do you need the promise of an afterlife, or the directive of a supernatural being to have empathy? Maybe that's a better question. Because obviously, atheists are quite capable of having empathy without the window dressing.

you've missed my point all together. you don't have to have the promise of afterlife to have empathy. i think all people have empathy to some degree. you seem to be answering your above post, and missing what i am asking- they are very different.

i am asking what is the basis for it, if we are here by random chance. If we got here by total random chance in a system that is cruel, and violent (natural selection- certainly is), then how would empathy ever entered the equation? have you ever had the thought as to why you do care (and i believe you do), when it flies in the face of how you believe (i am assuming here, correct me if i am wrong) we got here in the first place? I am not questioning if an atheist has the ability to be empathetic, just what the basis for it would be?

 

[VintagePunk]

It doesn't fly in the face of what I believe, at all. It's part of evolution. We've developed traits and abilities that are adaptive to our survival. Empathy is part of that. It's mutually beneficial to all of us to have empathy for others, among other things. It aids in our survival, and makes life pleasant.

Also, I take issue with your characterization of natural selection being cruel and violent. It's also beautiful, amazing, and awe-inspiring. But I guess we see what we want to, and natural selection threatens most religious belief.

 

[yolland]

natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak- these things are perfectly natural.

You could stand to do some reading in evolutionary psychology; selfish competitive instincts are certainly part of natural selection and have adaptive benefits, but so do reciprocal altruism and empathy, which enhance group ties and cooperation and therefore confer a more protective environment for reproduction. This is not unique to humans: laboratory monkeys will starve for days before giving in and pressing a button administering a shock to another monkey in order to be fed; chimpanzees will console the losers from fights within their group and bring together males who fight continuously for group-mediated reconciliation; many social animals go out of their way to protect the weak and infirm among them, even though at first glance such behavior might seem inefficient. Our moral behavior is more sophisticated than that, both because our societies are more sophisticated and because we rationalize our moral choices (sometimes including ex post facto rationalizations of reactions that are in fact hardwired--guilt, embarrassment etc.) but that's a difference of degree more than kind.

 

[jphelmet]

Empathy is part of that. It's mutually beneficial to all of us to have empathy for others, among other things. It aids in our survival, and makes life pleasant.

empathy aiding in survival of the fittest, makes no sense.

 

[Irvine511]

empathy aiding in survival of the fittest, makes no sense.

it makes perfect sense. i survive if the group survives, since i am stronger within the group than without the group. what does the group need to survive? all members must look out for one another. it's how a corporation is designed, even.

that's super simplistic, but i think it gets at the point.

 

[deep]

empathy aiding in survival of the fittest, makes no sense.

as someone that was once a 'believer' I do understand why you think that, I once did.


but, now as an agnostic, I find my moral code, sense of right and wrong much more stable. I know that may sound odd to you. When I was a believer it sounded odd to me, too. I believed the foundation of my values rested on religious teachings.

again, I can tell you my values and moral code are more secure now,
because they are not dependent upon a 'belief system' that is always open to some degree of doubt.

 

[VintagePunk]

empathy aiding in survival of the fittest, makes no sense.

I would suggest then that you really don't have a very good understanding of the term "survival of the fittest," which isn't a scientific term in the first place, the correct term is "natural selection."

Yolland said what I was trying to say in a more complete way. I would take her suggestion and look up some evolutionary psychology. Wikipedia has a decent basic overview of the subject.

again, I can tell you my values and moral code are more secure now,
because they are not dependent upon a 'belief system' that is always open to some degree of doubt.

I understand exactly what you mean by this. It feels similarly for me, too.

 

[Irvine511]

i also think that empathy is as learned a quality as any.

how many times do parents and teachers point out how a small child's actions affect others? how many times do we point out how we shouldn't do something to other people if we don't want it done to ourselves? how often do we try and draw a direct cause-and-effect lesson with a child? how often do we read books and ask outside questions, like how did what so-and-so do make so-and-so feel? is the puppy sad? why?

i think empathy is one of the most beautiful impulses there is. but i think it's largely learned behavior.

 

[BVS]

where does human empathy come from? if you are (or whoever) is a true atheist, than there is nothing to this life outside of the physical realm.

I am not an atheist, but I understand that there can be empathy without belief in a god...

You see it in nature all the time. The wolf will attack anything that gets in it's way but it will also raise a cub that isn't biologically hers... Like Irvine said, I survive if the group survives...

 

[phillyfan26]

haha, and did you know that you can get a free refill on your coke at Burger King?

It's a wonderful restaurant!

This is purely a social call. Just a couple of adults gettin' a stew on.

 

[phillyfan26]

where does human empathy come from? if you are (or whoever) is a true atheist, than there is nothing to this life outside of the physical realm.

if we are truly products of the evolutionary mechanism, and natural selection - where does empathy come into the picture. if there is no higher power (i am not speaking specifically of the Christian God- but any higher power as atheism denies), then why would you ever be empathetic?

I consider myself not necessarily atheist, but more or less apathetic. I don't care whether there is a God or not.

I don't know why I'm empathetic, but I am. Can it be that simple? I guess so.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I do agree that obsessing over God or the lack thereof in relation to moral behaviour is probably futile. But even in the absence of God, some religious teachings have managed to smooth some of the rough edges off human society, just as some other religious teachings may do the opposite.

See for example the strong evangelical inspiration of the early 18th century campaigners to ban slavery in the British empire.

None of which means that decency would not have won out otherwise, but still.

Now, if I wanted this thread to be about God, I'd say the universe on its cosmological scale is a lot more difficult to explain, with or without a god, than is basic morality.

 

[AttnKleinkind]

I don't think that the issue is whether there can be empathy/altruism or not without a belief in God. However, I don't think that there can be morality (based on something other than mere altruism) without a belief in God. Being empathetic is indeed necessary to the survival of the species. Morality tends to appeal to something greater, more objective (I know some people believe in relativism, but for morality to have any real meaning it must have some sort of appeal to the absolute). I think the problem of people thinking empathy is not necessarily figuring out what it is based on (as that can be explained by evolution), but what it is actually for. Yes, to propagate the species. But why is this a good thing? In a purely material world, everything comes to the same end. It doesn’t ultimately matter whether your species lives for 50 years or 50 000 years. If there is nothing outside this world, it doesn’t matter if you’re a murderer or a humanitarian. One might have a harder, sadder life than another, but it will end soon enough just as the person’s next to them.

Further on the distinction between morality and altruism is that, people often appeal to a standard of behavior. Having a standard of behavior indicates that this is not something that is always followed, but something that someone can choose to follow or not. Morality tells people that they ought to act in a certain way, while altruism would be simply an action someone does out of instinct. Certainly not everyone acts with empathy all the time. How is it that it is so easy for some to ignore this instinct if it is so prevalent to our survival?

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think that the issue is whether there can be empathy/altruism or not without a belief in God. However, I don't think that there can be morality (based on something other than mere altruism) without a belief in God. Being empathetic is indeed necessary to the survival of the species. Morality tends to appeal to something greater, more objective (I know some people believe in relativism, but for morality to have any real meaning it must have some sort of appeal to the absolute). I think the problem of people thinking empathy is not necessarily figuring out what it is based on (as that can be explained by evolution), but what it is actually for. Yes, to propagate the species. But why is this a good thing? In a purely material world, everything comes to the same end. It doesn’t ultimately matter whether your species lives for 50 years or 50 000 years. If there is nothing outside this world, it doesn’t matter if you’re a murderer or a humanitarian. One might have a harder, sadder life than another, but it will end soon enough just as the person’s next to them.

Further on the distinction between morality and altruism is that, people often appeal to a standard of behavior. Having a standard of behavior indicates that this is not something that is always followed, but something that someone can choose to follow or not. Morality tells people that they ought to act in a certain way, while altruism would be simply an action someone does out of instinct. Certainly not everyone acts with empathy all the time. How is it that it is so easy for some to ignore this instinct if it is so prevalent to our survival?

i think this is an interesting post, and it prompts me to ask you a question:

for you, what is the difference between morality and ethics? is there a difference? is one preferable to the other? why?

 

[yolland]

Yes, to propagate the species. But why is this a good thing? In a purely material world, everything comes to the same end. It doesn’t ultimately matter whether your species lives for 50 years or 50 000 years.

It's not a question of it being "good," it's just what happens; possessing inheritable traits which confer advantages in producing and/or raising healthy, well-protected, resilient and adaptable offspring means a greater likelihood that your line will 'live long and prosper.' While this observation doesn't help answer a question like "Why is cheating bad?", it is relevant to why we're capable of contemplating such questions in the first place.

(I know some people believe in relativism, but for morality to have any real meaning it must have some sort of appeal to the absolute)

I think the way I would put it is that for moral systems to be effective, they must be backed by broad social and cultural consensus. No system is ever going to enjoy exhaustive consensus on all points (*coughcough* abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment *coughcough*), and anyone tracking the history of a given cultural sphere over long periods of time will notice major shifts in moral thinking; but at the same time there's tremendous incentive, almost an inevitability even, for us to persist in perceiving, analyzing and responding to our social environment roughly in accord with the general outlines of the moral worldview we were raised with. There's not really any one critical item of belief a moral system's influence depends on, without which it'd suddenly shatter into a million pieces and blow away; we depend too much on, and are ourselves shaped too much by, the guiding metaphors and narratives embedded in it and in the culture more generally for that to happen (which is why Kantian fantasies of an ethics based on 'pure practical reason' alone are ultimately just as improbable, albeit just as 'appealing', as God reaching down from the sky and handing stone tablets to Moses).

Further on the distinction between morality and altruism is that, people often appeal to a standard of behavior. Having a standard of behavior indicates that this is not something that is always followed, but something that someone can choose to follow or not. Morality tells people that they ought to act in a certain way, while altruism would be simply an action someone does out of instinct. Certainly not everyone acts with empathy all the time. How is it that it is so easy for some to ignore this instinct if it is so prevalent to our survival?

An instinctive basis for altruism doesn't mean we'll always act altruistically, though; we have the capacity and inclination to do so, but we also have competitive, aggressive and self-protective instincts to contend with. The unique reasoning and communicative capacities humans possess allow us to articulate complex moral codes far beyond the 'proto-morality' displayed by e.g. apes, but the same altruistic and empathetic capacities that enabled our hominid ancestors to flourish through cooperation, in tandem with our reasoning capacities, provide a necessary foundation for the development and transmission of those moral systems. The rhesus monkeys I mentioned earlier wouldn't be able to articulate why 'I shouldn't hurt that other monkey merely to get a snack'; they wouldn't be able to extract a principle from that experience and ponder its applicability to other types of situations; but we can see from that experiment that at least in this particular instance the 'brakes' built into their basic survival instincts (food acquisition) look very similar to ours. If we didn't possess this same capacity, all the "How do you think your brother feels when you hit him? Would you like it if he hit you? Please don't do that; use words if you want something" in the world wouldn't amount to anything.

 

[U2DMfan]

I consider myself not necessarily atheist, but more or less apathetic. I don't care whether there is a God or not.

Site Table of Contents - Apathetic Agnostic Church
Tagline on this website reads "We don't know and we don't care."
I didn't read much else, it might be pretty funny.
Here are there articles of faith:

1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.

3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being. However, our apathy to the question of God's existence does not necessarily mean we are apathetic about promoting agnosticism.

I'd join but I don't even believe in churches.

If I were to join a church, I'd rather join the Church of the Subgenius.
Church of the SubGenius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[maycocksean]

how many times do parents and teachers point out how a small child's actions affect others? how many times do we point out how we shouldn't do something to other people if we don't want it done to ourselves? how often do we try and draw a direct cause-and-effect lesson with a child? how often do we read books and ask outside questions, like how did what so-and-so do make so-and-so feel? is the puppy sad? why?

I hear you, but I guess when it comes to these issue, my faith comes from a "darker" philosophy of human nature. It has a lot less to do with explaining why we are good, and more to do with explaining why we are not.

The reasons to be "good"--kind, empathetic, unselfish, cooperative etc--are obvious to the reasonable, logical mind. We don't need God to tell us that. What is illogical, and irrational--at least in my mind, is why so often we do things that are deliberately destructive, to ourselves and to others.

I don't see religious faith in and of itself as inherently good. Or bad. Nations based on atheism and religion alike have failed to best each other in creating an ideal and peaceful society.