Christianity has failed to…

[coberst]

Christianity has failed to…


I claim that the Christian religion has failed to teach empathy; one of the most important moral concepts we have.

There are various definitions of empathy given by various individuals but almost all of them point to the same meaning. Empathy is defined as the ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and beliefs of another person. Empathy is often characterized as the ability to “walk in the shoes of another”, i.e. to acquire an emotional resonance with another.

In his classic work about modern art, “Abstraction and Empathy”, Wilhelm Worringer provides us with a theory of empathy derived from Theodor Lipps that can be usefully applied to objects of art as well as all objects including persons.

“The presupposition of the act of empathy is the general apperceptive activity. Every sensuous object, in so far as it exists for me, is always the product of two components, that which is sensuously given and of my apperceptive activity.”

Apperception—the process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience.

What does in so far as it exists for me mean. I would say that something exists for me when I comprehend that something. Comprehension is a hierarchical concept and can be usefully considered as in the shape of a pyramid. At the base of the comprehension pyramid is awareness that is followed by consciousness. We are aware of many things but we are conscious of much less. Consciousness is awareness plus our focused attention.

Continuing with the pyramid analogy, knowing follows consciousness and understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid. We know less than we are conscious of and we understand less than we know. Understanding is about meaning whereas knowing is about knowledge. To move from knowing something to a point when that something is meaningful to me, i.e. understood by me, is a big step for man and a giant step for mankind.

My very best friend is meaningful to me and my very worst enemy must, for security reasons, also be meaningful to me. The American failures in Vietnam and Iraq are greatly the result of the fact that our government and our citizens never understood these ‘foreigners’. We failed at the very important relationship—we did not empathesize with the people and thus failed to understand our enemy. It is quite possible that if we had understood them we would never have gone to war with them.

If we had empathy with Germany in the 1930s would we have stopped Hitler before he forced us into war?

If we had empathy with Germany before August 1914 would we have prevented WWI?

Do you agree that we understand our best friend and that we must also understand our worst enemy?

[John P]

I don't understand. What does Christianity have to do with the "failures in Vietnam and Iraq?" If Christianity is to blame for the war in Iraq, then is Islam to blame for 9/11?

[Amadeus]

Christianity has failed or have "men" who practice Christianity failed? That's like a mathmatician telling you that 2 plus 2 equals 5, getting the equation wrong, then telling people that Mathmatics has failed.

[coberst]

I assume that religion is the primary teacher of morality in the US society.

I am convinced that empathy is one of the principal concepts of morality.

Evidence indicates that less than 10% of Americans know the difference between empathy and sympathy.

Christianity is the principal religion in the US.

Ergo Christianity has failed to teach empathy.

Empathy is about understanding. We empathesize with our best friend and we must empathesize with our worst enemy. We can more easily manage an enemy when we understand that enemy.

[starkey]

I find that Christians can be very empathetic people. But they are not perfect. Was the world more peaceful and empathetic before the birth of Christ or after? Any fair and analytical assessment would say after.

[Brutha]

If we had empathy with Germany in the 1930s would we have stopped Hitler before he forced us into war?

I think that empathy would have been needed in the 1920s, in the 1930s it would have been to late to prevent the war.

Any fair and analytical assessment would say after.

I think when you take any date a fair assessment would say afterwards.

Empathy is about understanding. We empathesize with our best friend and we must empathesize with our worst enemy.

I think that is also important when it comes to politicans like Bush. It's vitally important to understand the framework in which those people make their decisions.
Just saying he is evil leads to problems.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Any fair and analytical assessment would say after.

I think when you take any date a fair assessment would say afterwards.

I see what you're getting at, but that really only seems to apply to the last 50 years or so, if that. Let's not forget the crusades and witch trials. Then you have World War 1, World War 2, and Vietnam. I don't think that at any point in our history as a species, has there been more killing and genocide than in World War 2, and right now we seem to be going down the same road again. All of this is after Christianity. I don't think Christianity is solely to blame, however. I think that hunger for power and money supersedes that and unfortunately the human race has been like that for a long time. I think right now people are starting to wake up, but the leadership does not seem to care.

There is one Christian belief that I am completely against, and believe it should be removed from their religious doctrine. That's the belief that anybody who does not accept Jesus as their lord and savior is damned to burn in hell for eternity. This is not only a scare tactic to gain more followers, but also teaches intolerance to others and puts their followers on a pedestal over other religions. I believe that they (and other religions like Islam) should teach that all different religions are equal, and really just have a different way of going about the same thing.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by coberst

I assume that religion is the primary teacher of morality in the US society.

Nope.

Christians may make that claim, but it's bogus. Is that to say that pre-Christian people had no sense of morality? Is that to say that those cultures that don't practice Christianity have no sense of morality?

Clearly not.

[coberst]

Religion speaks constantly about love. What actions does one take in order to love someone? I claim that empathy is a necessary step toward loving someone. Religion has a problem with intellection; religion wants to focus on emotion. Reason is necessary for empathy; if so, it is necessary for love and thus religion fails when reason fails. Therein lay the paradox of religion.

[Brutha]

I see what you're getting at, but that really only seems to apply to the last 50 years or so, if that. Let's not forget the crusades and witch trials. Then you have World War 1, World War 2, and Vietnam. I don't think that at any point in our history as a species, has there been more killing and genocide than in World War 2, and right now we seem to be going down the same road again.

War can be a sympton of lack of empathy, but usually war doesn't lead to less empathy.
War can also lead to cultural exchange.
You should also keep in mind that war between Europeans was very common before the crusades, when you talk about that time.

I think they US population understands the Iraqis better at the moment than it has understood them five years ago.

TED | Talks | Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence (video) makes a good case, that we live at the moment in the peaceful time that ever existed.

Christians may make that claim, but it's bogus.

If they make that claim and don't deliever, why haven't they failt?

[Parthon]

I'm going to attack the argument from another angle.

A Church, whether christian or otherwise like any quasi-community entity needs followers. These followers tend to follow a religion but then also associate with a particular church. Now if the goal of churches is to get more followers, then the way to do that would be to increase following of the religion and in particular in such a way that people would associate more with that church.

You collect followers by being more appealing, and unfortunately the churches best weapon for this is fear. "Join us or burn in hell!" is the message heard most clearly. Some even say "Church every Sunday or burn in hell!" This fear is not for the "salvation of the "people" but mainly to get more followers.

They also furthur highlight their own morality, leveraging it in such a way that the followers feel they are superior to others just for following a religion. "I'm better than you because I'm a Christian." can often be heard by the religious. The association with a particular church helps people feel more important than their fellow man, and helps the church retain followers by painting others as lesser.

Now if you take this whole mess of fear and superiority, and compare it with empathy, Empathy involving putting yourself in anothers shoes, and seeing from their point of view, you can see how empathy will totally shatter the illusion of fear and superiority. The truth that everyone is just like everyone else would completely shatter the feelings of superiority that are taught by a church, and the fear of an imaginary condemnation would break when the only thing worse than damnation is being afraid for the whole time you are really alive. Empathy a contributor for awareness, and fear and superiority don't last long in the light of such awareness.

So the sole reason why churches don't teach awareness is because they would lose followers, and without followers the church would cease to exist. All the churches that teach compassion have long disolved, and become just religions. A church can't teach empathy and still exist.

It's also why you see many empathic, compassionate religious people who don't go to church. There's no church that teaches it, and really no need for one.

[beautyscientist]

Christianity seems a big deal in the US at the moment. A lot of Americans seem to be very keen on it, but there are some that are very anti it. Here in the UK we don't care very much either way. This is a bit of a turn around. When the US was founded it was probably the most anti-clerical place in the world and its constitution reflects that antipathy. Back then the English took religion very seriously.

Empathy has always been in short supply, but I have never noticed any difference in empathy levels either side of the Atlantic. Perhaps Christianity just isn't a factor here?

[wolfgang]

maybe if Christianity didn't exist we'd all be even less empathetic. There are tons of messages from scripture about empathy and maybe the message has been not understood or listened to, but imagine if the message wasn't even there for those that do get it. I'm not much of a scripture person, but I think of things like "make friends of your enemies" or "know thy neighbor as yourself" or "do unto other as you would have them do to you" - all these are trying to mention empathy and guide us into thinking or being that way. (sorry if my quotes of scripture are wrong, correct them if you know them, thanks).

[The David]

Wolfgang, the problem is that those principles are not at all unique to the Bible. I'm not saying that someone can't be inspired by the Bible just because it has negative and positive teachings juxtaposed and equally effective, but that if it were to become obsolete, people would simply follow other religions.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by The David

Wolfgang, the problem is that those principles are not at all unique to the Bible. I'm not saying that someone can't be inspired by the Bible just because it has negative and positive teachings juxtaposed and equally effective, but that if it were to become obsolete, people would simply follow other religions.

I terms of the OP, I was trying to point out - how do we know what effects Christianity has had? (or all the other religions?) Saying Christianity has failed would be better to say, the common message of religions is not being absorbed as much as it could be. Of coarse I agree that religions with dogma and specifics are missing the message. Although, some people do see what the message is above the rhetoric and it has helped the world a lot, imho. If Christianity (or other religions) didn't exist, I think we'd be worse off (even though we can see the corruption that has happened with them).

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by starkey

Was the world more peaceful and empathetic before the birth of Christ or after? Any fair and analytical assessment would say after.

As a history nerd I have to disagree here, I'm just not sure what you're referring to. In terms of the bloodiest conflicts, the 20th century was nasty on a level that no other one ever was before it. There have always been both bloody wars and empathetic people, but in the "bloodiness" category the 20th century takes the championship belt.

I honestly don't see Christianity being responsible for empathy on any scale higher than before it came along, and it was mainly based upon previous ("pagan") religions that pre-dated it anyhow. Jesus himself could be seen as a major, shining example of empathy, but organized Chrisitianity threw his teachings out of the window as soon as they could, and tended to become more and more violent until the Church was finally neutered during that thankfully-happening reformation-renaissance period and beyond.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by mlc82

As a history nerd I have to disagree here, I'm just not sure what you're referring to. In terms of the bloodiest conflicts, the 20th century was nasty on a level that no other one ever was before it. There have always been both bloody wars and empathetic people, but in the "bloodiness" category the 20th century takes the championship belt.

I honestly don't see Christianity being responsible for empathy on any scale higher than before it came along, and it was mainly based upon previous ("pagan") religions that pre-dated it anyhow. Jesus himself could be seen as a major, shining example of empathy, but organized Chrisitianity threw his teachings out of the window as soon as they could, and tended to become more and more violent until the Church was finally neutered during that thankfully-happening reformation-renaissance period and beyond.

How do we know if the world would have been less bloody without the crusades or whatever made the 20th century the bloody? Can we really know what the world would have been like without Jesus and followers? Maybe the world would have seen more of someother kind of bloodiness that kept continueing because no one had any idea about empathy from any source.

[Brutha]

As a history nerd I have to disagree here, I'm just not sure what you're referring to. In terms of the bloodiest conflicts, the 20th century was nasty on a level that no other one ever was before it.

What do you mean with bloody.
If we take for example the conquest of the holy land by Jews in the old testament (and I think that other groups were as violent as them), where God is said to have commanded them to slay all men and all woman who have sleept with a man.
That genocide, very bloody genocide.
We just have very good reporting about the victims of the twenty century and not so good reporting on the blood that flow in the centuries before.

The evidence we do have points in another direction. Archologist Lawrence H. Keeley for example found that in prehistory tribes a lot more people died through the use of weapons than today.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html makes the case in a bit more detail.

Maybe the world would have seen more of someother kind of bloodiness that kept continueing because no one had any idea about empathy from any source.

The point is that there are also a lot of other sources for empaty, as seen in the level of empaty of non christian nations like Japan.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

How do we know if the world would have been less bloody without the crusades or whatever made the 20th century the bloody? Can we really know what the world would have been like without Jesus and followers? Maybe the world would have seen more of someother kind of bloodiness that kept continueing because no one had any idea about empathy from any source.

I would assume that it would be, history would have progressed around the same direction but with some other ideology in place of Christianity. I don't think the religion made the world any more peaceful, if that's what the question was...

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Brutha

What do you mean with bloody.
If we take for example the conquest of the holy land by Jews in the old testament (and I think that other groups were as violent as them), where God is said to have commanded them to slay all men and all woman who have sleept with a man.
That genocide, very bloody genocide.
We just have very good reporting about the victims of the twenty century and not so good reporting on the blood that flow in the centuries before.

The evidence we do have points in another direction. Archologist Lawrence H. Keeley for example found that in prehistory tribes a lot more people died through the use of weapons than today.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html makes the case in a bit more detail.
The point is that there are also a lot of other sources for empaty, as seen in the level of empaty of non christian nations like Japan.

I really doubt that more people died from weapons in any previous century than they did during WWI and II combined in the 20th. That's what I mean by "bloody", sheer human induced carnage, death, and genocide against other humans. Of course that's gone on forever, but nothing on the same scale all at once in such a short time period that I can think of, or would think possible.


As an interesting side question to this, at what point in history did the standard practice of "take enemy city, butcher the men and infants, rape and keep the better looking women, enslave or kill the less attractive ones, and steal everything not bolted down, and burn all that you feel like" suddenly become "bad"? WWII?

The Hebrews as depicted in the Old Testament were as murderous and nasty as the Huns- ironic that so many people today revere them thanks to religious indoctrination while claiming that god to be "Pro Life".

[Brutha]

Of course that's gone on forever, but nothing on the same scale all at once in such a short time period that I can think of,

WWII was obviously on another scale in absolute terms. But on relative terms of the percentage of people killed, more died in earlier wars.
In former times there were many small wars and not one big war as in world war II, in those smaller wars a higher percentage of the population died than in our modern wars. It wasn't uncomman in former times that every tenth dead was du to another person killing you.
Especially when you are interested in history I would really recommand you to watch the Ted-video about the topic.

As an interesting side question to this, at what point in history did the standard practice of "take enemy city, butcher the men and infants, rape and keep the better looking women, enslave or kill the less attractive ones, and steal everything not bolted down, and burn all that you feel like" suddenly become "bad"? WWII?

It was a gradual change and no sudden change, but there is an event which some take as a change in that policy it's the Siege of Breda in 1624, where the general in question decided not to plunder the city after winning the war.

The Hebrews as depicted in the Old Testament were as murderous and nasty as the Huns-

More interesting is that they considered that behavior moral (the thing that the god wants you to do).
But there is no reason to believe that non-hebrews were any more peaceful during that time, they just weren't able to write everything down.

[Barcs]

Honestly, I can't really take anything written in the bible as historical fact. It's more of a guidebook than an actual historical record. I just think that the modern day weapons we have make killing so simple that it's everywhere. One bomb dropped and 200,000 people are dead. Today it would be millions. People may be more peaceful today in general, but most of the world leaders, it seems, are still living in the past.

[Nelson]

I'm not defending Christianity (I was a former Christian and am now fully agnostic and on the verge of atheism) but your "argument" if you can call it that, is ridiculous.

Flaw #1: You have attempted to say that there is an objective code of morality - which there is not from my perspective and probably from any perspective. Morality is generally a personal issue and very few people completely agree on any set of moral ideal(s).Amongst every religion there is infighting, sects and seperations - and within these sects there is even more infighting.

Flaw #2: You have provided no basis for your personal morality. My moral code is based on doing what is in my best interest. My happiness is my moral compass. You have not stated your basis for your moral code. By what basis is empathy a moral standard?

Flaw #3: Wars are not usually started by a lack of empathy but they are more often started out of ignorance and bad information. For instance, when America started up Vietnam our leaders were ignorant of the fact that we would fail to stop the commies, take heavy losses both in the economic and physical sectors as well as face major opposition on the home front. Today, with our knoweldge of the situation there is absolutely no way we would participate in Vietnam. Empathy for the Vietnamese has absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

Please do not attack a religion or any thing/person in a verbal or physical way because their morals do not match up with your morals. It is foolish to assume that anyone else in the entire world operates on the same moral principles as you or that they ever will.
.

[Brutha]

Honestly, I can't really take anything written in the bible as historical fact. It's more of a guidebook than an actual historical record.

Yes, it's a guidebook that shows that genocide was morally ok in 1000 BC.

One bomb dropped and 200,000 people are dead. Today it would be millions.

But today we don't use the bombs to kill millions.

According to an antiwar website]1,2 million people died through the Iraq war. On the other hand over 5 million died in the Viatnam war.
There is a bit of progress in reducing the amount of collateral damage done to civilians. It's still to much, but calling it more bloody is misleading.

Please do not attack a religion or any thing/person in a verbal or physical way because their morals do not match up with your morals.

He attack christianity because he thinks it's responsible for deaths. We shouldn't we attack an ideology that causes deaths (the question whether it really is responsible is another matter).

[JMan]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I terms of the OP, I was trying to point out - how do we know what effects Christianity has had? (or all the other religions?) Saying Christianity has failed would be better to say, the common message of religions is not being absorbed as much as it could be. Of coarse I agree that religions with dogma and specifics are missing the message. Although, some people do see what the message is above the rhetoric and it has helped the world a lot, imho. If Christianity (or other religions) didn't exist, I think we'd be worse off (even though we can see the corruption that has happened with them).

I don't think Christianity has failed, or is failing. I think events are unfolding precisely as prophesied in the Bible. Those who are Christian, act Christian. Those who are not, don't. Each person makes their own choice (and Christianity does not call on its followers to kill those who do not follow Christianity - Christians believe God will take care of that on his own - unlike what we are seeing now in Radical Islam where followers do believe they need to slit the throats of unbelievers - Christians know it is God and only God who can judge). The world is becoming a more and more dangerous place, Christians are and will continue to be under more and more persecution, and the message is continuing to spread. God said that all the world will hear the message so that none will have an excuse. 20th century invention like the internet and television are aiding in the rapid spread of that message. He who has an ear, let him hear.

So, no, I don't believe Christianity has failed. It was never the intent, nor ever prophesied that man, by following Christianity, will bring peace to the world. Quite the contrary, God is to destroy the world once more, and Jesus Christ then is to establish peace and governance.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Brutha

But today we don't use the bombs to kill millions.

Not yet we haven't. There's no saying absolutely that somebody won't. We have used it this century though killing something like 500,000.

According to an antiwar website]1,2 million people died through the Iraq war. On the other hand over 5 million died in the Viatnam war.

That's true, but the Vietnam war lasted almost 16 years and we had steady resistance from the opposing country. In Iraq it's almost been 5 and it is mostly rogue terrorist groups and other loyalists since we've already ousted the leader and taken over. So for Vietnam it is roughly 300K killed per year, and in Iraq so far we have about 240K killed per year if those stats are correct. That's really not that much different, and I don't believe that includes Afghanistan or Israel or any other conflicts going on throughout the world right now. I wasn't really comparing Iraq with Vietnam though. I was comparing the 20th century as a whole to previous years. I'm pretty sure the main reason the percentages might be lower is because countries like China and India have a crap load of citizens, roughly 3 billion put together ( nearly half the world's population), and the majority of them are not fighting in wars.

[cdn2wheeler]

Nelson, you've made some errors in pointing out flaws of the argument.

Originally Posted by Nelson

Flaw #1: You have attempted to say that there is an objective code of morality - which there is not from my perspective and probably from any perspective. Morality is generally a personal issue and very few people completely agree on any set of moral ideal(s).Amongst every religion there is infighting, sects and seperations - and within these sects there is even more infighting.

Oddly enough, one finds that, despite deep cultural divisions and physical distance between cultures (in the times before mass communication), there actually does seem to be some sort of objective code of morality. It's probably an evolutionary or social construct rather than one based on religion, but in every culture there are some things that are universally morally repugnant: theft, murder, abuse and so forth.

Originally Posted by Nelson

Flaw #2: You have provided no basis for your personal morality. My moral code is based on doing what is in my best interest. My happiness is my moral compass. You have not stated your basis for your moral code. By what basis is empathy a moral standard?

Again, there's an assumptive error made here. If your moral code is based on what's in your best interest, then that presumes that it's OK to push an old lady into the street because she happens to be in your way. Unless I miss my guess, you probably don't make a habit of pushing octogenarians into oncoming traffic. And if your own personal happiness is your prime moral directive, then robbing a corner store must be OK in your world as long as it makes you happy. That's not morality, though, that's anarchy.

Following a creed of pure personal self-interest isn't a basis for morality; rather, it's a symptom of the sociopath.

Again, I really don't have any issue with the nature of your argument, but these particular examples don't help your case.

[Brutha]

Each person makes their own choice (and Christianity does not call on its followers to kill those who do not follow Christianity

But torturing them till they 'convert' to christianity to safe them from burning in hell isn't that much better which the inquisitors did.
In addition nearly no moslim interprets the Koran that way. Like nobody interprets the old testament in way that sanctions genocide.

I'm pretty sure the main reason the percentages might be lower is because countries like China and India have a crap load of citizens, roughly 3 billion put together ( nearly half the world's population), and the majority of them are not fighting in wars.

China and India participated in WW2.

But in general if you seek peace and large countries in which the majority of people become peaceful, that is a huge success.

Not yet we haven't. There's no saying absolutely that somebody won't.

The question is whether we are peaceful or aren't. If we don't use them we are peaceful.

[m18pak]

What is the difference between empathy and sympathy?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by m18pak

What is the difference between empathy and sympathy?

Sympathy is instinctive and empathy is an act of will. Sympathy happens, like many other things; empathy requires will, imagination, and reason.