The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

What do you think is behind empathy?  Like what fuels it?  

Well, it is probably an evolutionary trait that helps to create strong bonds in human groups and hence increase survival of family groups and clans and so on. 

But you can probably find more about it here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethical-wisdom/201103/i-feel-your-pain-why

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, it is probably an evolutionary trait that helps to create strong bonds in human groups and hence increase survival of family groups and clans and so on. 

But you can probably find more about it here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethical-wisdom/201103/i-feel-your-pain-why

I ask because I do the same thing, in terms of like the kids and your reaction.  I guess I over-think things cuz I always like...try to work out why the reaction is as it is, or whether it is as extreme in other people as it is in me, or whether mine is even that extreme.  I've found myself considering the notion that it's perhaps slightly egocentric on some level.  I mean human beings are kinda innately egocentric but I kinda think like, is it me or is it the kids?  Do you kinda get what I mean, its sorta like the principle I was putting across in our discussion earlier with the animals thing, whether it's really about us or the animals.  I never seem to reach satisfactory conclusions so I was just wondering how other people do.  Or whether they do.  I feel that way...then I find myself kinda feeling bad for feeling that way.  

I really like soons reaction...but I don't share it.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I ask because I do the same thing, in terms of like the kids and your reaction.  I guess I over-think things cuz I always like...try to work out why the reaction is as it is, or whether it is as extreme in other people as it is in me, or whether mine is even that extreme.  I've found myself considering the notion that it's perhaps slightly egocentric on some level.  I mean human beings are kinda innately egocentric but I kinda think like, is it me or is it the kids?  Do you kinda get what I mean, its sorta like the principle I was putting across in our discussion earlier with the animals thing, whether it's really about us or the animals.  I never seem to reach satisfactory conclusions so I was just wondering how other people do.  Or whether they do.

Hard for me to say, but what I have found interesting is how my own empathy in regards to kids have changed after I became a dad. That really boosted it. And that's fascinating to me, like, from a scientific level. What's the molecular mechanism behind something like that? Of course, as I said, that episode at the hospital was out of the ordinary -- naturally it was a genuinely troubling sight, I was in a melancholic mood that day, the violin concert probably helped, and the last time I visited the hospital I was there with my youngest daughter who was in really bad shape -- but I have become a lot more sentimental from fatherhood. And maybe from age.

As for "is it about us or about them?" I think it is both. If we accept the theory that this behavior has been evolved to strengthen group bonds, when you feel empathy and express empathy, that is both about you and about them. A bond is a mutual thing. It doesn't just work one way. Both gain from it. 

But personally I have never had any need to analyze this. It is an innate human thing. It is beneficial. To me, egoistical would be if one deliberately faked care and concern for someone just to reap the benefits of that bond. That's egoistical. But spontaneous empathy for someone else, even if you benefit form it, is never egoistical in my opinion. 

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Hard for me to say, but what I have found interesting is how my own empathy in regards to kids have changed after I became a dad. That really boosted it. And that's fascinating to me, like, from a scientific level. What's the molecular mechanism behind something like that? Of course, as I said, that episode at the hospital was out of the ordinary -- naturally it was a genuinely troubling sight, I was in a melancholic mood that day, the violin concert probably helped, and the last time I visited the hospital I was there with my youngest daughter who was in really bad shape -- but I have become a lot more sentimental from fatherhood. And maybe from age.

As for "is it about us or about them?" I think it is both. If we accept the theory that this behavior has been evolved to strengthen group bonds, when you feel empathy and express empathy, that is both about you and about them. A bond is a mutual thing. It doesn't just work one way. Both gain from it. 

But personally I have never had any need to analyze this. It is an innate human thing. It is beneficial. To me, egoistical would be if one deliberately faked care and concern for someone just to reap the benefits of that bond. That's egoistical. But spontaneous empathy for someone else, even if you benefit form it, is never egoistical in my opinion. 

I meant egotistical in the Freudian sense that we're kinda driven by ego and looking at things from that mindset.  I just feel like, after analysing it every which way up, there's a number of different things it could be.  See I like when you say thats it's 'been evolved to strengthen group bonds' and so it's about you and them.  But are these things really that easy and neat?  I always question the answer that sits well with me because, well, that's easy isn't it?  That could easily be self-serving.  What if we don't necessarily accept the theory that it has been evolved to strengthen group bonds, what then?  Is it pity?  Do we pity these people?  Or is it that we perhaps look at them and see the potential for what's happening to them in ourselves?  Or are some people disgusted and then perhaps drawn to emotional states in recognition and response to their own callousness?  OR...perhaps deep inside ourselves we relate to them in the sense of perhaps, at our weakest moments, we've thought of ourselves as inadequate, damaged etc and in seeing them it triggers subconsciously repressed notions that we feel or felt about ourselves and that triggers the emotional response?  Or perhaps none of those, I dunno.  Maybe I over-think shit.

[soon]

Christmas morning was a lot for Dad to process 

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Christmas morning was a lot for Dad to process 

Presents from Father O'Malley?  

[Len Cnut]

22 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Presents from Father O'Malley?  

By the look on the Dads face they was his fuckin' presents   He's got the weakened droopy eyed look of a man thinkin' about gettin' his oats

[SoulMonster]

13 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I meant egotistical in the Freudian sense that we're kinda driven by ego and looking at things from that mindset.  I just feel like, after analysing it every which way up, there's a number of different things it could be.  See I like when you say thats it's 'been evolved to strengthen group bonds' and so it's about you and them.  But are these things really that easy and neat?  I always question the answer that sits well with me because, well, that's easy isn't it? 

Waste of time questioning the answers that makes sense when there's so many things that don't.

[Len Cnut]

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Waste of time questioning the answers that makes sense when there's so many things that don't.

I don't think so.  I think we settle on things that make a kind of sense because it's easy...but the truth is often difficult, challenging and troublesome.  I'm not the type of kiddie to accept something just cuz it feels good to me.  Question everything I say.  Question everything and be hard on yourself, don't always accept the easy answers cuz it makes you feel better about yourself/the world.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't think so.  I think we settle on things that make a kind of sense because it's easy...but the truth is often difficult, challenging and troublesome.  I'm not the type of kiddie to accept something just cuz it feels good to me.  Question everything I say.  Question everything and be hard on yourself, don't always accept the easy answers cuz it makes you feel better about yourself/the world.

We don't settle on things because it is easy. We settle an on explanation because it most perfectly explain a phenomenon. And an explanation makes automatic sense when it does explain a phenomenon.

We question an explanation when it doesn't explain a phenomenon, or where there are other rival explanations that also explain that phenomenon.

Rejecting an explanation that explains a phenomenon simply because it is simple and easy, doesn't make sense at all.

And applying that mind-set to the everyday world, would suggest that you would spend your time questoning things that really makes sense and is correct, simply because you feel the explanation is "too easy", while not questioning things that have a complex explanation but where that explanation is not really good or where dissensing explanations exist. Seems to me like a colossal waste of time.

[Len Cnut]

36 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

We don't settle on things because it is easy. We settle an on explanation because it most perfectly explain a phenomenon. And an explanation makes automatic sense when it does explain a phenomenon.

We question an explanation when it doesn't explain a phenomenon, or where there are other rival explanations that also explain that phenomenon.

Rejecting an explanation that explains a phenomenon simply because it is simple and easy, doesn't make sense at all.

And applying that mind-set to the everyday world, would suggest that you would spend your time questoning things that really makes sense and is correct, simply because you feel the explanation is "too easy", while not questioning things that have a complex explanation but where that explanation is not really good or where dissensing explanations exist. Seems to me like a colossal waste of time.

Its not JUST cuz its easy, its because there are other explanations you could perhaps entertain that might be the correct one.  I mean how do you conclude that one explains a phenomena most perfectly unless you entertain the other potential answers? 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Its not JUST cuz its easy, its because there are other explanations you could perhaps entertain that might be the correct one.  I mean how do you conclude that one explains a phenomena most perfectly unless you entertain the other potential answers? 

I don't have time to entertain all potential alternatives on every possible phenomenon myself. That's what we have experts for. I trust the experts. What else can I do? If evolutionary biologist and evolutionary psychologists agree that empathy is likely to have evolved as an evolutionary adaptation, and there doesn't seem to be much of a scientific consensus, then I accept that. Because it is likely to be correct.

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't have time to entertain all potential alternatives on every possible phenomenon myself. That's what we have experts for. I trust the experts. What else can I do? If evolutionary biologist and evolutionary psychologists agree that empathy is likely to have evolved as an evolutionary adaptation, and there doesn't seem to be much of a scientific consensus, then I accept that. Because it is likely to be correct.

I'm not talking about any and every possible alternative to everything, just the ones that bear some sort of relevance or interest to me.  It don't cost nothing to think fella.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I'm not talking about any and every possible alternative to everything, just the ones that bear some sort of relevance or interest to me.  It don't cost nothing to think fella.

You said you always question an idea that sits well with you. Now it is more like, you question an idea that sits well with you when there are alternative explanations that bear some sort of relevance and interest to you. Well, that's all fine. But again, if an interest bears relevance or interest to me, yet doesn't make sense or has no support from experts, then I won't bother thinking too much about it because the primary explanation is highly likely to be correct. And it does cost to think, it costs time, and I want to spend my time rationally, not wasting it puzzling over stuff where the bodies of smarter heads than me agree.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

You said you always question an idea that sits well with you. Now it is more like, you question an idea that sits well with you when there are alternative explanations that bear some sort of relevance and interest to you.

Did I say always?  I did, didn't I?  That was a little imprecise of me.

Quote

Well, that's all fine. But again, if an interest bears relevance or interest to me, yet doesn't make sense or has no support from experts, then I won't bother thinking too much about it because the primary explanation is highly likely to be correct. And it does cost to think, it costs time, and I want to spend my time rationally, not wasting it puzzling over stuff where the bodies of smarter heads than me agree.

Perhaps part of the process is applying the formulas of smarter heads to your specific life/circumstances as part of the process of working shit out.  That and a little independent thought.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Iron MikeyJ]

@SoulMonster,

God IS good. You have to look beyond what is right in front of you though. Which as an atheist, I understand that is difficult. When it comes to things like sick kids, it's easy to see the negative aspects of it, only the human side. 

As a Christian I see beyond just the suffering of this world. I also know that those that suffer on earth are rewarded in heaven. So while I also feel sympathy for sick children (the correct word is sympathy not empathy. In order to feel empathy you HAVE to of gone through it yourself. So unless you yourself were a sick child, it's not possible for you to have empathy towards them. What you are feeling is sympathy. Back on topic). The rewards that awaits these children in the next life will be SO great. No more suffering, no more pain. They will finally be free. They are also about as close to Holy as one can be, even if they dont believe. They are just SO pure, SO innocent. That's beautiful unto itself. 

I would also add that the impact these children make on the lives of those around them can NOT be understated. Let's say that mom or dad (or perhaps both) always struggled with bravery or confidence. I cant imagine how much personal bravery they will get after watching their child be so brave themselves. It's not always easy to see the positives from a tragedy, but they are there. For me personally, my mother died when I was 15 and I pretty much had to fend for myself after (yes I had a father, but we've always been estranged). So while it was VERY hard for the first 10 years or so, I am a better, stronger person now for going through that. It has also made me a better father and I ALWAYS put my family first. I wouldnt be the man I am today, had my mother lived. That was my personal cross to bare. We all have them. But struggle and suffering are a part of the process, and yes good will come from them if you seek it.

So yes GOD IS good, and despite the tragedy that these children and their families are going through, a lot of good WILL come from it. Besides the faithful dont view this world as the end. So we have faith, hope, and belief that we will see our loved ones again. 

[Len Cnut]

20 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@SoulMonster,

God IS good. You have to look beyond what is right in front of you though. Which as an atheist, I understand that is difficult. When it comes to things like sick kids, it's easy to see the negative aspects of it, only the human side. 

As a Christian I see beyond just the suffering of this world. I also know that those that suffer on earth are rewarded in heaven. So while I also feel sympathy for sick children (the correct word is sympathy not empathy. In order to feel empathy you HAVE to of gone through it yourself. So unless you yourself were a sick child, it's not possible for you to have empathy towards them. What you are feeling is sympathy. Back on topic). The rewards that awaits these children in the next life will be SO great. No more suffering, no more pain. They will finally be free. They are also about as close to Holy as one can be, even if they dont believe. They are just SO pure, SO innocent. That's beautiful unto itself. 

I would also add that the impact these children make on the lives of those around them can NOT be understated. Let's say that mom or dad (or perhaps both) always struggled with bravery or confidence. I cant imagine how much personal bravery they will get after watching their child be so brave themselves. It's not always easy to see the positives from a tragedy, but they are there. For me personally, my mother died when I was 15 and I pretty much had to fend for myself after (yes I had a father, but we've always been estranged). So while it was VERY hard for the first 10 years or so, I am a better, stronger person now for going through that. It has also made me a better father and I ALWAYS put my family first. I wouldnt be the man I am today, had my mother lived. That was my personal cross to bare. We all have them. But struggle and suffering are a part of the process, and yes good will come from them if you seek it.

So yes GOD IS good, and despite the tragedy that these children and their families are going through, a lot of good WILL come from it. Besides the faithful dont view this world as the end. So we have faith, hope, and belief that we will see our loved ones again. 

All this is gonna go down a bundle with Soulie

[Iron MikeyJ]

Let me add this... I say all of that with a SEVERELY disabled child myself. She was born with epilepsy, cerebral palsy, cortical blindness, and the mental capacity of a 6 month old (for the rest of her life). Her life expectancy is only to about 30 or so (and she is 14 now). So while she isnt technically dying right at this moment, she is VERY much the definition of special needs.

I would also add that most "men of science" (doctors) would recommend that she been aborted. Which would have been FAR more devastating to our family. Blessings come in all shapes and sizes, especially through hardships. 

Just something to think about...

[soon]

The Psalms were mentioned as an example of Christian thought on the goodness of God. No Christians wrote any Psalms, though. The Psalms predate Christs arrival by like a 1000+ years. The Psalms had a very specific role in Judaism in their time. The Psalms of Ascent were specifically for ceremonial stair climbing. Gods goodness is often a centre of the Psalmists meditations as a way to affirm their own ongoing peoplehood in God despite the times they turned their back on God. The Jews were enslaved, exiled to Babylon, embattled. The reminder of Gods goodness is central in their notion of collective guilt. The Psalmist reminding of Gods goodness highlights that humans had failed the covenant. Its a form of yearning for a return to Gods presence. God is good despite His Peoples suffering, because their suffering was their own doing. God is also good because he kicks their enemies asses. 

Psalms can, and do, inform Christians personal journey with Christ. That is despite the decidedly non-Christian content they present. They are larelgy difficult to reconcile with Christian thought because part of Gods goodness according to the Psalmists is that he will produce a warrior Messiah to liberate them militarily. We know that Christ was instead the "Prince of Peace." The Psalms cannot, save a few cases, inform Christiology with their claims beyond by ruling out what God revealed in Christ is not.

[Len Cnut]

5 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I would also add that most "men of science" (doctors) would recommend that she been aborted.

Doctors do that?  Damn..

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Doctors do that?  Damn..

Here is something to ponder: the Naziification of Germany has often been described by historians as the ''scientification of Germany''. There are few other examples in global history of scientists being so aggrandized, given such freedom and power, political, ideological, than scientists in the Third Reich. 

[Len Cnut]

22 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Here is something to ponder: the Naziification of Germany has often been described by historians as the ''scientification of Germany''. There are few other examples in global history of scientists being so aggrandized, given such freedom and power, political, ideological, than scientists in the Third Reich. 

I never knew doctors, today, in the here and now, would tell you to abort a baby though.  Or recommend as Mikey put it.  Is it like...I mean, where's the threshold with things like that, how ill does the baby have to be?  

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

I never knew doctors, today, in the here and now, would tell you to abort a baby though.  Or recommend as Mikey put it.  Is it like...I mean, where's the threshold with things like that, how ill does the baby have to be?  

I don't know anything about today. I keep away from ''women's stuff'' haha. I think this is a big debate in Ireland, the abortion thingy. 

[Len Cnut]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I don't know anything about today. I keep away from ''women's stuff'' haha. I think this is a big debate in Ireland, the abortion thingy. 

On the point of Nazi Germany, they even fucked my man Nietschze (my man, like we played 5 aside together ) philosophy up.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

On the point of Nazi Germany, they even fucked my man Nietschze (my man, like we played 5 aside together ) philosophy up.

That was his sister that though, who reworked his writings after his death to reflect militarism and national socialism. Usually younger sisters merely develop a penchant for boy bands!