I came across this interesting quote from William Booth, founder and first general of The Salvation Army, this morning. I suspect that a standard apologetic for this quote is the idea that The Salvation Army intentionally ministers to those who are society’s outcasts and losers, the gravely impoverished, those with whom “decent” people hesitate to associate. Still, I couldn’t help wondering if this thought also reflects an impoverished view of humankind. After all, this is a religious organization that holds the following creed:
We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God. (The Salvation Army, doctrine #5).
Now, I’m not a glassy-eyed idealist who believes that humankind is inherently inclined toward goodness. Nor am I a frothing-mouthed pessimist who believes that humankind is thoroughly wicked. My observations of humankind, plus readings of history, philosophy, sociology, etc., have led me to conclude that people have varied, often contradictory, personal, social and moral characteristics and dispositions. Given that, I’m thoroughly repulsed by the notion that all people are “totally depraved,” especially as a consequence of what two people may have done thousands or millions of years ago (a notion that is contingent, of course, on whether those people even existed).
If you ask me, a standard Christian notion of its so-called Good News (people suck, but god can fix them) isn’t encouraging. I’ll stick to my humanist view of humankind as a species that is imperfect, but has the potential to continue improving our moral and social lot. We also have the potential to blow ourselves to smithereens, but I’ll note that the Christian view doesn’t preclude that possibility; it just leaves humanity’s fate in the hands of its god. Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll take responsibility for my own fate; I trust my flawed hands more than I trust his invisible ones.
– the chaplain
Lorena
January 29, 2010 at 12:39 pm
This is a complex issue that I’m sure your readers will thoroughly deconstruct.
Are all people sinners? Sure. Is that a bad thing? Hell no. Are all people prone to debauchery, drunkenness or whatever? No. I don’t remember ever feeling the urge to out there to break the law or get drunk or hurt anyone.
Apart from those extreme behaviours, I’ll say that it is my experience that most people mean well. That often their well-meaning efforts are misguided is a different issue. But people mean well and do their best to help others. For instance, it doesn’t matter which country I’ve found myself in, Germany, Mexico, or where ever, I’ve felt reluctant to ask for help, because I am usually sorry I asked. Once you ask, you can’t get rid of the person. They almost want to take you by the hand and lead you.
On the topic of misguiding the masses, religion and politics get top marks in my book.
Craig
January 29, 2010 at 6:59 pm
I’m puzzled why you chose to group those three things together : a) breaking the law, b) getting drunk c) harming others.
Do they actually belong together? Are they really in the same category of “extreme behaviours”?
cl
January 29, 2010 at 8:04 pm
With the question of whether we’ve been improving our moral and social lot temporarily aside (my initial response would be that we haven’t), why tack the label of “humanist” onto a view you share with theists?
Lorena
January 29, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Craig, did you read the line where I said Apart from THOSE extreme behaviours?
If you misunderstand every thing you read that grossly, it is no wonder you’re puzzled. You must be puzzled a lot.
OneSmallStep
January 29, 2010 at 11:18 pm
**so-called Good News (people suck, but god can fix them) isn’t encouraging**
I’d describe the Good News more as “people suck, but God can fix them after they die.” Because whenever someone points out that Christians, as a whole, aren’t any more or less moral than non-Christians, the response I commonly see is that God will really only fix people post-death, and it’s a process while on Earth, and there will be lots of setbacks to that process.
CRL
January 30, 2010 at 12:13 am
I, for one, do not know if I want to be fixed. Sure, perhaps I could be a bit nicer, or more honest, but it is our imperfections which make us human, and our struggle to fix them that makes life worth living. It’s disheartening to think that what we accomplish in a lifetime of work could be “poofed” by God in an instant.
PhillyChief
January 30, 2010 at 10:11 am
There is no such thing as sin.
Although this isn’t a unique view to Humanism, determining moral values without some extraneous and potentially detrimental notion of a god should be the approach taken. As Nietzsche’s revaluation of all values urges, old ideas, especially those dependent upon a god, should be abandoned and replaced with new ones based on the realities of being human.
In my classes, I emphasize that it’s not enough to simply learn the steps to achieve a certain goal, but you have to understand why those steps work. The reason being that should you ever encounter an unusual situation where the learned steps don’t work, what then? If you understand the how, then you stand a chance at working out a solution. The same is true for learning morals as fiats, for in a challenging moral predicament, what then? How do you work out what to do? One of the things I continually point out is the discouragement of empathy in religions like Christianity. In a moral predicament, I think someone is much better equipped to work out a better solution if they have some understanding of why things are good and bad and has a healthy level of empathy over someone who simply thinks the right course of action is simply what they think their god wants.
yunshui
January 30, 2010 at 10:39 am
Philly’s last sentence hits the nail on the head for me. Black-and-white absolutist morality, the one which says, “x is wrong, y is right,” is de rigeur in religion, and is also totally inappropriate in real world situations. Any meaningful moral judgement requires that its implementation have an effect on other humans (or at least other living things), and to make such a judgement by recourse to a list of rules, without accounting for said effects, is in itself an unethical act.
the chaplain
January 30, 2010 at 11:33 am
Lorena – I agree with Philly that there is no “sin” as typically understood by the religious. If what you meant by people being “sinners” is that people often hurt each other or indulge in behaviors that have negative effects on themselves and others, then I can agree with that idea. As I noted in the OP, we’re all flawed. I prefer not to use the religiously loaded terminology of sin and sinners to describe that condition.
Craig – I’ll let you and Lorena sort this out.
cl: – as Philly noted in his comment, the
characteristicposition I described is not exclusive to humanism. It is consistent with humanism, however, so there’s nothing wrong with using the label; the statement was not intended to be exclusive.OSS – Getting fixed after death does seem rather pointless.
CRL – Any fixing that needs to be done will have to be done by humankind. We might accomplish it more readily if we realized that fact instead of waiting on an extraneous entity to do it for us.
Philly & yunshui – Empathy is one of the most useful tools we have for moral decision making.
Craig
January 30, 2010 at 1:19 pm
No need to get belligerent. I was simply asking why you thought being drunk was an “extreme” behaviour.
Perhaps I misunderstood the antecedent of “those” in the phrase “apart from those extreme behaviours”. If so, please enlighten me. However, it would seem obvious to me that the behaviours you were labelling as “extreme” were the three you outlined in the previous sentence. I was questioning your assumption that breaking the law or getting drunk were “extreme” behaviours.
Mark
January 30, 2010 at 2:25 pm
What the Salvation Army fails to realize is that most folks that need their services are financially destitute and not morally corrupt.
And what’s up with this constant connection between Christianity and “good news”?
Christianity is a curse to humanity.
the chaplain
January 30, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Mark:
The “constant connection” between Christianity and “good news” is that this is the Christan claim. The etymology of the term “gospel” is:
The first four books of the New Testament are commonly called “gospels,” as they purportedly report the “good news” of Jesus’ teachings, miracles, atoning death, resurrection, etc.
quantum_flux
January 30, 2010 at 4:47 pm
It was probably a lot easier to believe that humanity was depraved before the invent of much of the modern technologies, perhaps it took the industrial revolution and the scientific enlightenment to bring people out of the depravity of the Dark Ages.
OneSmallStep
January 30, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Chaplain,
**OSS – Getting fixed after death does seem rather pointless. **
Well, given that there’s no consistent data that God fixes pre-death, and the claim of “God will fix you” can’t be changed because then the whole foundation falls apart … He’s gotta fix people at some point.
cl
January 31, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Chaplain,
Gotcha. It was sounding like you possibly thought one need be a humanist to extol those positive virtues.
PhillyChief,
Sounds good and all, but that’s a terribly poor criteria for discovering truth. Ideas shouldn’t be abandoned simply because they’re old. Many old ideas are valid and many new ideas are bunk. Incidentally, note how you used the word “especially” in that sentence.
I get that this is your opinion and all, but what I want is to understand why you hold it. You allude to, “the discouragement of empathy in religions like Christianity,” but what exactly are you alluding to in that free lunch? Did some or all of the Christians you know or knew lack empathy? Has every Christian you ever met lacked empathy? Have you never heard a Christian sermon on empathy? I’ll be the first to agree that people in any bunch can lack empathy, but when you start implying as some general truth that “Christianity discourages empathy,” I think you’ve left sound argumentation. What I’m wondering is, why do you just make a subjective blanket statement like that? Don’t you get annoyed when people, but especially non-atheists, make blanket statements about atheism? I know you do. Well, that’s the feeling you’re producing in others right now.
Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree with you where you say we need to ACTUALLY THINK and learn the why instead of being bound blindly to moral decrees. When I read the NT, I see Jesus as trying to teach the hard-headed Pharisees exactly what you are telling us here: to think outside the constraint of rigid moral rules. The Pharisees were great at following rules but horrible at relating to people and being human, and Jesus criticized them sharply for that. You seem to be coming from the same place.
PhillyChief
January 31, 2010 at 5:59 pm
No, of course not. What I meant earlier was that they require a revaluation, meaning they must be put to the test before accepting them.
Certainly not. That’s the power of social morality and perhaps genetics that despite subscribing to a belief system that discourages empathy, one can still remain empathetic.
Well there’s the issue of the Christian variant of the Golden Rule of course, which is really at the heart of it and leads to various impositions upon others.
Then there’s the horrid tale of Abraham and Isaac which is so highly esteemed by you all, but we should avoid the OT since that’s a damnable cesspool void of human empathy, what with the raping and pillaging and infanticide, that it would hardly be fair if I just cited that thing, although since many are citing it to justify their anti-gay bigotry, I think it’s fair to mention that bit at least. Of course Romans 1:26-27 is one of those NT passages they cite as well (Paul was a bit uptight), among others. Hardly empathetic to deny people equal rights based on sexual orientation, but at least today that’s mostly the worst of what they do to them, unlike in the ‘good ol’ days’. Still, the fact that Christians today can rationalize not following a lot of that crap is due to the empathy I mentioned above coming from society and perhaps genetics.
As for your Jesus, did he speak out against slavery by any chance? Pedophilia? Did he tack on after saying marriage was for a man and woman that it’s ok for same sexes to marry, too? How about simply not bashing them? I know, I know, he only had so much time, right? And he had to get those Pharissees straightened out and perform some random healings and other magic, and stir up trouble at the Temple, and then there was that whole crucifixion thing. Oh about that, on what day did that happen again?
ildi
January 31, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Not to pile on, Lorena, but my reaction was the same as Craig’s; getting drunk is extreme behavior? My second thought was, you’ve never had the urge to get drunk?
Most people get drunk w/out the urge to do so because drinking is a delicate skill that requires years of practice to learn how to maintain the perfect buzz w/out going too far. So many variables to control! What are you drinking? Who are you drinking with? Have you eaten? Are you tired? Are you in a bad mood? Are you on medication? Are you dancing or shooting pool or just sitting around? Are you outside in the hot sun?
Suddenly I feel the urge to work some more on perfecting my skills…
ildi
February 1, 2010 at 7:47 am
Lorena: in one of those lattices of coincidence NPR has a segment on Morning Edition this morning about the over-the-top drinking of young Brits, with naked debauchery as the goal. I used my Nancy Drew detective kit and noticed that you spell behavior funny…
Craig
February 1, 2010 at 10:10 am
Honestly, I think our society could use a little more naked debauchery.
cl
February 3, 2010 at 4:24 pm
If that’s all you meant to say, then we agree.
I guess part of the reason I have trouble nodding in agreement to this is because I’m of the opinion that individual people approach things individually. Some who label themselves Christians have no empathy for others cf. a large subset of the Republican party. Others who label themselves Christians are the nicest, most generous and empathetic people in the world. Some churches seem to almost teach party lines and exclusivity. Others not. The same goes with those who label themselves atheists, Buddhists, Mormons, etc. That’s why I can’t help but furrow my brow when I hear blanket arguments like “X discourages Y,” because I tend to see in color. What you allude to generically as “Christianity” is actually a conglomeration of billions of people spread across the planet. It just doesn’t seem meaningful to paint in such broad strokes.
I’ve read your arguments about the Golden Rule several times and as phrased they don’t hold water for me. Your so-called “negative golden rule” could be just as easily twisted towards selfish ends. Rephrasing the rule negatively doesn’t increase its moral worth.
PhillyChief
February 3, 2010 at 4:46 pm
When I say Christianity discourages empathy, I’m referring to the Christian bible. Your examples of people behaving individually despite what’s said in that book, actually proves my point.
Well as you would say, “I get that this is your opinion and all, but what I want is to understand why you hold it.”
You see, having one set of rules for yourself and another for others is yet another reason why you’re generally considered a douchebag.
Ah, well there’s two points there and they both are over valuation. The first is the issue of empathy. Yes, empathy is necessary for good, but the presence of empathy doesn’t guarantee good. In fact, it may very well be the case that one could be more successfully evil if they can better empathize with their victims for through such understanding they can really hurt and take advantage of them. Lack of empathy, however, I think is a guarantee for evil, but perhaps more of an amoral evil, acting without any clue.
The second issue is over moral worth. As I said above, empathy doesn’t guarantee good, but lack of it guarantees evil, so the negative GR isn’t perhaps automatically of higher moral worth, but it has greater potential for good.
If you’d like an analogy, try atomic theory. Wonderful bit of knowledge to have, allowing for some incredible things. One of those things, however, not so very nice as some Japanese survivors can attest to.
cl
February 3, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Hey, fair game, but I explained why your argument doesn’t hold water IMO which makes your “one set of rules” another childish oversight instead of a valid objection. To repeat, “What you allude to generically as “Christianity” is actually a conglomeration of billions of people spread across the planet. It just doesn’t seem meaningful to paint in such broad strokes.” Now you clarify that you actually meant “the manual.” Okay, I appreciate the clarification, but you’re still painting in broad strokes and engaging in selective research to make your case. Hell, you’re not even being clear enough for anyone to rebut you: what do you mean “THE manual?” The Bible? Which Bible? Is there only one that Christians read from? I mean come on, hoist yourself by your own petard once in awhile. Anchor your claim to something I can go look at and analyze for myself. You know, something objective.
I don’t have one set of rules for myself and another for you or others. I expect you to make decent arguments just like I expect myself or anyone else to. In fact, I’ve come to expect so little from you philologically that raising standards especially for you would be unwarranted. The “jackass-douchebag” gambit was old last year. Think up a new one already.
And, funny hearing you pontificate about “lack of empathy” right after calling me a “douchebag”! Practice what you preach and then talk about who uses differing sets of rules.
Yeah I heard that inconsistent argument the first time. I agree that empathy doesn’t guarantee “good” whatever that is. I disagree that lack of empathy guarantees “evil” whatever that is. If A doesn’t guarantee B, neither does ~A guarantee ~B. It’s called “logic” for a reason.
I agree, and there you actually seem to pull it together for a second. Now take that concept and that’s exactly how I look at the Bible, or politics, or skateboards. Like anything else, people can use things for “good” or for “evil.” That’s the realistic way of looking at things IMO but hey I’m not asking you to share it. I just don’t think it’s realistic to argue in black and white.
PhillyChief
February 3, 2010 at 5:57 pm
A = food
B = live
If one has A, they may get B (the food may be bad, they may not choose to eat it, etc)
If one does not get A, they WILL NOT get B.
Suck it.
You know what’s even funnier? This other line of yours – “That’s why I can’t help but furrow my brow when I hear blanket arguments like “X discourages Y,” because I tend to see in color.” LOL! Yeah, well try harder then “tend”, as in don’t just try when it suits you, Mr. Confirmation Bias.
cl
February 3, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Just curious: have you ever thought to try humility and empathy for others instead of pride and insult? Maybe focus on your arguments and cogency instead of the easy but meaningless verbal kill? It’ll help your logic and your interactions with theists immensely, I promise.
Your response is insufficient and illogically formed on several levels. Worse, it is by definition irrational until evidence or emendations are forthcoming. You said,
1) The salient word there is may, PhillyChief. If one who has food may live, then food [A] doesn’t guarantee life [B], now does it?
2) And if in fact food [A] doesn’t guarantee life [B] – which you’ve already admitted – then you’ve formed an inaccurate analogy in response to my statement, which began with the requisite condition of A guaranteeing B. Apples and oranges.
Will you deny that one too? Or will you man up for once and say, “You know what, you’re right cl. If A doesn’t guarantee B then I’ve made an inaccurate analogy” ?
Prove John Evo wrong when he told you,
In short, you’re wrong and no amount of chest-puffery can change that. Unless you’d like to get a little deeper into your argument, as stated you are correct that empathy does not guarantee “good,” but you are mistaken to claim that lack of empathy guarantees “evil.” Remember, the burden of proof falls to the positive claimant. I deny your claim that lack of empathy guarantees “evil” (whatever you mean by ‘evil’ is anyone’s guess). I deny your claim that “the manual” discourages empathy.
Please, it’s fine if you don’t respect me, but for the love of logic will you at least respect the burden of proof in your own arguments??
ildi
February 4, 2010 at 9:11 am
A defining element of a psychopath is that they do not and probably cannot empathize with other people. They are often good at imitating this, but in doing so they are using it in a cold and manipulative way.
and
In clinical terms, empathy is the ability to recognize and interpret other people’s emotions. Lack of empathy may take two different directions: (a) accurate interpretation of others’ emotions with no concern for others’ distress, which is characteristic of psychopaths; and (b) the inability to recognize and accurately interpret other people’s emotions, which is the NPD [narcissistic personality disorder]style.
and
This is troubling, considering that lying is the most common complaint about narcissists and that, in many instances, defects of empathy lead narcissists to wildly inaccurate misinterpretations of other people’s speech and actions, so that they may believe that they are liked and respected despite a history of callous and exploitative personal interactions.
hmmm….
cl
February 5, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Nothing to say about the logic of the arguments of course, just more rhetorical stabs and insinuations. I know I’m neither liked nor respected in the atheist’s sandbox; I’m under no delusion whatsoever in that regard.
What interests me are the latent psychological factors that influence people like yourself. You know, quick to condescend, quick to put the blame on others, quick to descend into insult.. that sort of thing. Does it make you feel better to insult and cuss at others in comment threads? Do you get some sort of satisfaction not unlike the road rage participant? I mean, if I was an atheist, badmouthing theists online would be the absolute last thing I’d be doing with my one life, that’s for sure. Really, it just seems like such an immature waste of time to me, but to each their own each their own, I guess.
PhillyChief
February 5, 2010 at 11:00 pm
That’s perhaps the only regard where you’re not delusional, although you are still deluded as to why you’re neither liked nor respected.
Now if I was perpetually labelled a troll, a jackass, a douchebag, or merely a person of questionable intent whenever I engaged in online discussions, the absolute last thing I’d be doing with my life would be continuing to engage in online discussions. Now personally, I’d question whether perhaps I was a troll, a jackass or a douchebag, but that’s me. Being a self deluded clown like you however, I’d probably just think everyone online was an asshole and wash my hands of it all. Returning again and again for abuse, whether deserved or not, appears insane no matter which way you look at it, no?
cl
February 6, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Top o’ the mornin’ to ya, ChiefyBoy!
I’d really rather talk about your so-called “argument”, but I’m such a loser with no friends and nothing better to do that I guess I’ll take your irrelevant vitriol instead.
Quite a bit to unpack there, but as usual, a cherry-picked case as the “feedback” sidebar of my blog will indicate. It’s funny: the scientists and philosophers and the heads of international atheist organizations are leaving rather supportive comments, while the totality of the vitriol comes – in every case – from online atheist bloggers whose arguments I’ve challenged. Talk about an inability to recognize patters! I mean come on; make an accurate statement here.
If I were perpetually labelled a troll, jackass and douchebag by, say, everybody I came across, or people whose work I respected, I’d be concerned. You seem to forget that you’re just another guy with a hot temper and an AlphaMale complex who likes a B-grade football team. It’s okay buddy; I’m a Lions fan!
That disgruntled atheist bloggers whose arguments I challenge consistently label me with pejoratives is nothing to be concerned about. Rather, it’s just more testimony to the vacuity of their arguments and I’m willing to wear their medals of honor. For example, just look at yourself here. You totally botched your “food / live” analogy, you haven’t justified your blanket statement that “Christianity discourages empathy”, you haven’t explained the connection to Romans 1:26, and instead of take responsibility for any of it, here you are feeding trolls on a perfectly good Friday night. The sands of your life are ticking away. I’m not worth it. Or, am I?
Also, your comment seems to assume that how others perceive me is my priority. It’s not. Respect is just emotional soothing for people who need it. I want to know who has sound arguments for atheism, or against theism, and that’s not you or any of your cronies.
Well good there’s one more thing we have in common. Again, you assume I don’t question those things. Given my extensive knowledge of my own propensity to error, long ago I adopted the policy of questioning all insults to see if they might reflect a grain of truth, because they often do. Yours don’t. When you fail to understand whatever is I’m saying at the moment, you simply assume that I’m speaking for duplicitous reasons, then go around libeling me. All the while you’re out there laying
traps– oh, sorry – tests and encouraging people to call me “jackass” because “it’s fun.” If that’s your idea of fun, that’s pitiable.I’m not here to be abused, don’t you get it yet? That got old on our very first thread together, over two years ago. Other people aren’t your little toys for abuse and amusement. If Christianity discourages empathy, I’d say you’re quite the model Christian then, because you obviously don’t care one lick about how any of your comments make your interlocuters feel.
If you want to respect the burden of proof and take some accountability for your sorry-ass arguments, hey, you know where to find me and I’ll give you the same respect as I would anyone else. If not, keep feeding “trolls” on Friday nights and using words like “jackass”, “douchebag”, and “empathy” in the same comment.
To be dead honest, the main reason I was continuing with you at all was out of curiosity to see if you can ever admit to being wrong to a theist. I really don’t believe you can, even when the evidence is undeniable and right in front of your face. Upon further reflection, I admit that’s probably a selfish and immature reason to have discourse with you, so I guess as long as I continue with you on that motive I’m no better than you. Ouch! Now there’s a reality check for ya!
On that note – take care Dave. Enjoy your life. I know you’ve said you could vent all day long about those you hate, but try to find the good in others and see what you come up with once in awhile.
And keep prayin’ for them Chiefs. It’s been, well… interesting, to say the least.