PDA

View Full Version : Christianity has failed to…


coberst
02-19-2008, 01:22 PM
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?

coberst
02-20-2008, 05:46 AM
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.

Frogs Rule
02-20-2008, 08:23 AM
.
christainity are religieuse convicton. many politikere say they are christian leders and use religion to farther their goals for politiques purpose. people should not believe them bu t there do.
.

Inviolable
03-03-2008, 01:19 AM
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.
Reason wouldn't be possible with out emotion in a lot of our life.
Emotions are our driving force, it's what compels us to be who we are.
If you loved someone, you're going to use emotions to reason what they enjoy.
It's what is needed to make a relationship possible, with out it we would be extinct. If not extinct we surely wouldnt be at the top of the food chain.

We use emotions in connection with reason to extend our talents and survival skills.
I could go on and on.
With out emotions working with reason the way they do we would be something completely different.

People only use reason to get that which makes them happy or what they think will make them happy.


2 Timothy 4:3-4
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

coberst
03-03-2008, 07:59 AM
Reason wouldn't be possible with out emotion in a lot of our life.
Emotions are our driving force, it's what compels us to be who we are.
If you loved someone, you're going to use emotions to reason what they enjoy.
It's what is needed to make a relationship possible, with out it we would be extinct. If not extinct we surely wouldnt be at the top of the food chain.

We use emotions in connection with reason to extend our talents and survival skills.
I could go on and on.
With out emotions working with reason the way they do we would be something completely different.



I agree. Emotions are instincts.

Inviolable
03-03-2008, 11:36 AM
I agree. Emotions are instincts.
Thats good to know, now explain how we can have the ability to reason with out emotions or "instincts"?

es347fan
03-03-2008, 02:16 PM
Religions speak of love, but deliver guilt.

coberst
03-04-2008, 03:01 AM
Thats good to know, now explain how we can have the ability to reason with out emotions or "instincts"?

Humans are born with instincts but we are the only animal that have the ability to place these instincts on hold so that we can reason about an action before taking that acton.

Inviolable
03-04-2008, 11:32 AM
Humans are born with instincts but we are the only animal that have the ability to place these instincts on hold so that we can reason about an action before taking that acton.
That really doesnt answer my question. We're simply putting our emotions on hold. That doesn't stop us from acting out what our emotions are telling us we want to do. That just helps us to get what it is we wanted.

Imagination is the key to what you're looking for, not reason.
It's what separates us from everything that lives on this planet.

Frogger
03-04-2008, 11:36 AM
I don't know if I agree with you, coberst.

Empathy,is in my opiion an overused term. When a woman has a miscarriage her friends say, "I know how you feel". When someone loses a spouse in a tragic accident friends say, "I feel your pain". They are mixing up sympathy with empathy. They do not know how the woman feels or how the spouse feels. They have not, to use your term, "Walked a mile in their shoes".

Since we were culturally so different from the North Vietnamese we could not empathise with them. We could sympathise with them but that is not the same thing. The same with Hitler. We could not empathise with him. We might be able to sympathise with the German people who were burdened by the unfair Versailles Treaty but, not being similary burdened, we could not empathise with them.

The Christian Church does not teach empathy but rather sympathy. I, as a Christian can not know how you feel, I can not feel your hurt, I cannot empathise with you. I can, however, sympathise with you and try to ease your burden.