Faith Erodes Compassion

flight747

According to Jerry DeWitt, author of Hope after Faith: An Ex-Pastor's Journey from Belief to Atheism, one should not continue believing in God due to the problem of evil thorughout the world. In his book, he cites a quote from Sam Harris, a reknown Atheist philosopher in academia. This is what DeWitt cites from Sam Harris:

“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely. The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion. Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, “this might be all part of God’s plan,” or “there are no accidents in life,” or “everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves”—these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.

I have attempted to layout Harris's quote in the following manner:

1. If you have a religious faith, then it erodes compassion.
2. In view of tragedies, your religious faith spurs you to say, “this might be all part of God’s plan”, “there are no accidents in life,” or “everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves” (Which are not only stupid but extraordinarily callous).
C Thus, your religious faith erodes compassion. (1,2 MP)

Although there is some truth in Harris's quote, I believe there some things that need to be considered before concluding that one's religious faith erodes compassion. With this in mind, I challenge premise one on the basis that many would argue having a religoius faith actually boosts their compassion. It is often the case that broken people (Let's say people X) end up in churches on Sunday mornings or Wednesday nights after fighting against many obstacles, such as homelessness, depression, robbery, miscarrige, drug addiction, divorce, etc. And it is also often the case that after their lives are transformed through Christ, they remain faithful Christians (In Christianity; I am speaking for Christianity but this can also happen in many other faiths). Thus, when another person (Person Y) comes to church to seek help, person X will have not only an overwhelming amount of love and care for that invididual, but more importanlty compassion because they themselves have undergone the struggles of person Y. Thus, many would argue that having a religious faith has been their medium through which they have been able to boost their compassion, due to the fact that they themselves have struggled and then been restored to Christ.

Please comment and tell me what you think is or isn't right about Harris's quote.

Blue Lux

↪flight747

I have read and heard many arguments from atheism. The new pop-philosophy atheism is usually just ridiculous. They take Nietzsche way too far. And they are all based on Nietzsche, from what I see.

Because something may be irrational; this does not make us rational for not engaging in this imagined irrationality. In the end we are all irrational creatures.

Following what one's heart tells them (and I am not afraid to say this) is the way to go, and this will undoubtedly be different for many people. I do think, if people really did follow their hearts in their decisions then the world would look very different. Church would not look like brainwashing. It is in many cases brainwashing. Just go to your nearest Baptist church and listen to people. It will make you want to scream, unless you take the words people say at face value and their emotions and actions at a real value.

Harris' quote is not his. He is a regurgitator of ancient philosophy calling it his own. There is a reason I read nothing from him. There is nothing I dont already know that he says.

Blue Lux

↪flight747

In terms of compassion... Compassion... Where is the compassion in this world? Is there even compassion to speak of? Where do you find true compassion? Very rarely!

BrianW

While I think most people's beliefs need to be revised with respect to their religions, I find that atheists also need to find a positive channel for their expression of atheism. Atheism should not be about antagonism to religious beliefs.

Also,

Thoughts like, “this might be all part of God’s plan,” or “there are no accidents in life,” or “everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves”—these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this. — flight747

This does not exclusively reveal a lack of compassion. Such statements cannot be limited to the domain of the religiously devout. From my perspective, it seems like human beings in uncertainty attempting to employ reason to explain to themselves by using references common to their understanding of events which are beyond the human scope of control.

Faith and belief don't just exist in the domain of religion.

BC

"FAITH ERODES COMPASSION".

↪flight747

Where do people get these stupid ideas from?

Maybe faith is a good thing; maybe not. On what basis does some yoyo think that it erodes compassion? If one is compassionate, then one is compassionate; if not, then not -- but not because of or in spite of faith.

Maybe God exists; maybe not. I kind of doubt it. But people have been trying to box up the God concept for a long time and generally the box isn't big enough.

All sight

Implicit in the claim is the idea that one only ought to have compassion for the innocent, and clean, rather than the responsible, or guilty. I would just suggest that this is not generally what religious people proponent.

More than that though, does Sam really think, either that the overwhelming majority of suffering, and well being is randomly generated by the universe, or that we shouldn't feel compassion for the suffering of those that are in some sense responsible for that suffering?

Further still, we really need to differentiate the two, for far more significant reasons than whether to withhold or let flow the tears of heart break, but so that we may actually do something about it. The tears are worthless. Though, I wonder if there are any examples of Sam being moved to tears, or showing a high level of compassion? Nearly moved to tears of laughter from time to time though I'm sure.

flight747

↪Blue Lux

Hi Blue Lux,

Thanks for commenting! Could you please dive deeper into your claim that we are all irrational creatures? "Because something may be irrational; this does not make us rational for not engaging in this imagined irrationality. In the end we are all irrational creatures." I beg to differ seeing as we live deciding many aspects of our lives in our most rational way possible. I should look twice before crossing the road (Yes, because it will prevent me from getting into a car accident. No, because I am in a rush. Then we rationally think that our lives are more important then getting to Y location on time.l Thanks!

To adress your concern about what is compassion, I believe it is an act of kindness and selfless motive that benefits the other person, but the benefit to the person doing the compassion is mostly neutral. I think we see that often in society, not just in rare occasions. People being polite to others because they feel for person X who has been working all day. Picking up random trash by the side of the road in order to make the community nicer. I don't think it's a good argument to say that just because you don't see compassion, does not mean there is none.

I will keep responding to people as I have time. Thank you!

ssu

First it should be noted that any media-atheist like Harris won't talk about any positive aspects of religion as they simply will get this hurled back at them in the next media discussion they participate in. It's just the vitriolic public discourse that we have.

One can agree with the argument especially when a religion justifies present greviances in the society, or as Marx put it, when "religion is the opium of the people". The caste system in Hindu religion and the hierarchy in reincarnation is a great example of how it could be argued that religion erodes compassion to your fellow man, here at the poor or at the "untouchables".

The opposite and your argument, Flight747, is also very justifiable. We have gotten our moral ethics code from religion and no matter how much atheist want to deny this, this is obvious. No matter logical and 'humane' these things would be without any religion. The teachings of Jesus Christ, just to take an example, are quite compassionate and do take into account others.

It's the simple problem of an atheist seeing the negative aspects of religion and not giving much thought to the positive aspects of it.

InfiniteZero

1. If you have a religious faith, then it erodes compassion.
2. In view of tragedies, your religious faith spurs you to say, “this might be all part of God’s plan”, “there are no accidents in life,” or “everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves” (Which are not only stupid but extraordinarily callous).
C Thus, your religious faith erodes compassion. (1,2 MP) — flight747

I do not think this only applies to religions. It would also apply to any type of deterministic view where one may claim that "whatever happened, happened for a reason, and so we need not show compassion to that person" in that sense. Even a causally deterministic world view would simply argue that certain events lead up to whatever happened, "it was bound to happen", "nothing to be done about it".

However, what I fail to see is the necessarily link between showing compassion and being religious or believing in causal determinism. how does thinking that "it was all God's plan" stop one from showing compassion to someone who's innocent experiencing something bad? One can still show compassion and think it was bound to happen, or it was part of some grandiose plan of God itself. compassion and religious belief seem to be mutually exclusive of each other, you may have both, or one or the other, or none at all. But, neither necessitates the non-existence of the other.

Joshua27

It’s kind of a straw man, I think. I don’t think Harris really has his finger on the pulse of what really happens in a church. From what I’ve seen it’s not other’s misfortune, but rather ones own misfortune (or more often, good fortune) you hear of when folks talk about God’s plans. It’s forbidden to judge others in this way (judge not...) and people generally don’t. The book of Job is a common OT favorite and it’s moral is that misfortune is not always earned.

Wayfarer

one should not continue believing in God due to the problem of evil thorughout the world — flight747

It’s the ‘hotel management theodicy’: ‘Hey, can’t you see there’s a problem here? People starving to death, wars, diseases, epidemics? What kind of place is this? How could anyone let this happen. I DEMAND TO SPEAK TO THE MANAGER’.

What this doesn't see is that holy scriptures generally do not promise that the world ought to be devoid of suffering. Indeed there's a sense that life in the world might even be itself a consequence of evil, something which is made explicit in gnosticism. But in any case, the world is a kind of 'testing ground' where the choices you make will determine your ultimate fate. The fact that bad things happen is an inevitable part of that - which is not to say that evil or suffering shouldn't be ameliorated however possible. But they're kind of baked in.

_db

Wait, isn't the Catholic Church the largest charitable organization in the world?

Wasn't atheism state-enforced in Stalinist Russia?

We can cherry-pick all sorts of examples of religious or non-religious groups to fit an agenda. To say "faith erodes compassion" or "religion poisons everything" or "there are no atheists in foxholes" is to make a sweeping generalization, and it reduces complex philosophical topics to shallow slogans and straw men.

Wayfarer

↪darthbarracuda

which is typical of Sam Harris

_db

↪Wayfarer

The new atheists are beating a dead horse and the neo-scholastics are trying to resuscitate it (that's my sweeping generalization of the situation).

Wayfarer

↪darthbarracuda

well kinda except that the neo-thomists wouldn’t agree that it had died.

All sight

Sam Harris sees pleasure and pain. The terrorists are religious, and causing trouble because of their ideology. He is not. The terrorists see corruption and purity. They see a corrupt society leading people away from virtue, and into every form of indulgence.

Personally, I think that it is quite possible to lead people astray, and steal everything of true value from them in the process. I do in fact think that living in perdition is far worse than anything else.

This is unfortunate in general. People have a "don't physically harm or disrupt anybody" morality. A "leave me alone" morality. Not one that understands that if you hang around drunks, you'll be a drunk, if you hang around active people you'll be active, etc. That we influence, idolize, copy and are copied.

"A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." - Bob Dylan

How harmful are you really? Is hitting people, or even killing a few brutally worse than leading a million into darkness?

VagabondSpectre

How harmful are you really? Is hitting people, or even killing a few brutally worse than leading a million into darkness? — All sight

Darkness never hurt anyone; if anything it forces us to improve our sight.

Brutal killing however, that harms people...

All sight

↪VagabondSpectre

A serious matter. "But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea." - Jesus

I'm not in favor of brutal killing, and don't think that Jesus was either, but the comparison of worth and value is what is significant. He doesn't know what his arrogance is costing.

VagabondSpectre

He doesn't know what his arrogance is costing. — All sight

Whose arrogance? Jesus' arrogance?

It depends on the sin doesn't it? Teaching a child to blaspheme, for example, is not nearly as bad/evil/sinful as tying a millstone around someone's neck and drowning them.

Since when was Jesus such a mafioso?

It's quite disturbing that religion oft permits doing violence to people as a means to avoid "sin/darkness", but somehow fails to realize just how dark and sinful those violent proscriptions actually are.

Seems that the cure is worse than the disease, does it not?

All sight

↪VagabondSpectre

Sam's arrogance, the significance of brutal violence in comparison to being lead astray is what I was speaking to, and saying exactly that it is not worse. By any stretch of the imagination. Not comparable.

Not talking about doing violence to people to avoid sin, but to those that lead people, perhaps by the millions, into it. The comparison to doing this, to hurting less people, or even the same amount. Since you don't understand what I'm talking about, and just think that physical harm is the worst thing imaginable, you won't understand this.

Blue Lux

↪Wayfarer

WHENCE COMETH EVIL!?

Blue Lux

↪Wayfarer

WHENCE COMETH EVIL!?

VagabondSpectre

↪All sight

Are you saying that Sam Harris is doing damage by leading millions into sin and darkness?

Can you give an example of that?

I suspect that you have this particular (fairly puritanical/spiritualistic) view about what constitutes healthy living (such as believing in god) and are convinced that anyone who tries to deviate from this is bound for self-destruction... Is that correct?

Blue Lux

↪VagabondSpectre

But keep in mind that something is finite only with an infinite reference point. These ideas of morality are not finite but plural and fluid conceptions that do not include thoughts of which are in opposition to the paradigm of myth, belief, thought and judgment they refer to. Therefore they may contain a valid meaning inascertainable by any outside means.

All sight

↪VagabondSpectre

Not like he is a particularly bad human being, other than his influence, and the swaying of so many people into thinking that religion is a ridiculous thing for rubes. Not smart people like them.

No, I have a very specific view about a personal relationship with God, that is just tops. Nothing beats it, by a long shot, but it's difficult to acquire, and harder to sustain. At base, you have to think that such a relationship is possible. That there is something to search for, and find. The details are not nearly as significant. Just some level of orientation in the right direction...

One is so deeply confused and alone otherwise...

Blue Lux

↪All sight

But the implications!

VagabondSpectre

↪All sight

Let's take it a step further then.

Would it be moral to silence Sam by any means necessary, given that he causes so much non-physical harm by making fun of religion and "leading people astray" (astray from what, your own personal Jesus?).

What if some people aren't necessarily confused and alone without a personal relationship with god?

All sight

↪VagabondSpectre

I'm for being the ways that I know to be right, for the reasons I've already given, rather than forcing people to do what I want. What he's doing is still terrible, whether you or he realizes it or not.

The reasons that I gave are that morality is about being a cure and not a poison. Not about just leaving everyone alone, and not oppressing them, or harming them, or telling them what to do! But about how your influences and behaviors reverberate through the world. How your actions have consequences much more far reaching than you realize. This is why all of the power is always in your hands, to be a light unto the world, and all that. That's what morality is about, what kind of karma you generate, how your actions have consequences. Being the cure, and not the poison.

VagabondSpectre

for the reasons I've already given, — All sight

You haven't given any reasons yet, at best you've alluded to reasons (spiritual/religious ones).

I've also asked for an example of Sam's terrible actions, and dissuading people from religion and religious orthodoxy isn't clearly a good one.

Not about just leaving everyone alone, and not oppressing them, or harming them, or telling them what to do! — All sight

Being the cure, and not the poison. — All sight

How your actions have consequences much more far reaching than you realize. This is why all of the power is always in your hands, to be a light unto the world, and all that. That's what morality is about, what kind of karma you generate, how your actions have consequences. — All sight

What kind of ramifications of actions are you talking about? I'm concerned with the happiness and well-being of others, but I'm not concerned with the well-being of their immortal soul, because I think such a thing is incoherent.

When you echo Jesus by saying it would be better to be killed than to lead people away from religion, I can't help but see you as advocating for the oppression, harm, and control of others.

Unless you plan on bringing god herself directly into this discussion, I don't see how you could possibly get me to realize what I'm missing. As far as I can tell it's just a load of unnecessary religious baggage.

Wayfarer

↪Blue Lux

WHY THE CAPITALS?

Blue Lux

↪flight747

Desires are irrational. Perhaps emotions are even a-rational. All people are irrational. There is a part of us that makes us specifically human that is irrational, and it is just as well based.

Faith Erodes Compassion

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions