Vortigern99 posted: Moreover, going back to my earlier point about the primacy of biblical wisdom in this regard, I apologize ahead of time for playing a kind of "my guy thought of it first" game, but I do want to point out that the concept of loving-kindness in Judaic thought pre-dates the ideas of Plato and Aristotle by some five or six hundred years. Biblical scholarism -- a science distinct from religious or faith-based concerns with the same material -- tends to date the writing of Exodus in the 9th century BCE; while Aristotle lived around 350 BCE and Plato, fifty years prior. The Book of Exodus represents the first use of the word translated as "loving-kindness" in English, and this word is repeated in Chronicles II, Psalms, Nehemiah and Isaiah, with regard to both God's love and mercy for "His" people and humanity's love and mercy for each other. While Plato and Aris. might have arrived at their secular thinking on the subject independently of any influence from Judaic theistic philosophy, that is an impossible proposition to prove, and it is probably more reasonable and logical to conclude that Judaic thinking on loving-kindness, since it predates Greek thought on the matter by at least five centuries, most likely had some effect or degree of influence, via transmission across Mediterranean channels, on the later philosophers. What this indicates to me is that theistic thought first developed the concept of loving-kindness: that love among all members of a society, and not simply affection between paired partners or blood-relatives, derived from a perceived shared relationship with a creator god. In a discussion such as this one, in which faith in a supernatural power is so often discussed as detrimental to human health and well-being, I believe this is an important idea to introduce.
Vortigern99 posted:In a discussion such as this one, in which faith in a supernatural power is so often discussed as detrimental to human health and well-being, I believe this is an important idea to introduce.
dianethx posted:When we get a chance, I'd like to know more about strong atheism claims vs. weak atheism that Quixotic-Sith mentioned.
Quixotic-Sith posted:dianethx posted:When we get a chance, I'd like to know more about strong atheism claims vs. weak atheism that Quixotic-Sith mentioned. Weak atheism is simply the lack of a deity concept. For instance, children are naturally atheistic in that they do not have a sense of something transcending their everyday experience until one is introduced to them (e.g., via friends, family, or other socializing factors).
JMJacenSolo posted:Quixotic-Sith posted:dianethx posted:When we get a chance, I'd like to know more about strong atheism claims vs. weak atheism that Quixotic-Sith mentioned. Weak atheism is simply the lack of a deity concept. For instance, children are naturally atheistic in that they do not have a sense of something transcending their everyday experience until one is introduced to them (e.g., via friends, family, or other socializing factors). Is this so? Aren't supernatural myths derivative of human imagination stemming from a lack of scientific understanding of natural phenomena?
Jabbadabbado posted:How well is the Bahai Faith really doing in the wealthy industrialized world?
dianethx posted: I admit that I don't have the theist background so forgive me if I'm confused. I don't understand how belief in a god helps a society of 'loving-kindness' that you are talking about. Some animals show the same traits of protecting the group as does Neanderthal remains of 60,000 BCE (from Wikipedia - La Chappelle-aux-Saints Estimated to be about 60,000 years old, the specimen was severely arthritic and had lost all his teeth, with evidence of healing. For him to have lived on would have required that someone process his food for him, one of the earliest examples of Neanderthal altruism (similar to Shanidar I.)
dianethx posted:And doesn't the Judaic 'loving-kindness' idea only extend to the Jewish groups themselves and not outsiders so that it was more of a protection for their own group and not altruistic to all?
dianethx posted:Vortigern99 posted:In a discussion such as this one, in which faith in a supernatural power is so often discussed as detrimental to human health and well-being, I believe this is an important idea to introduce. I don't necessarily think that faith is detrimental to the human who believes it but that it can be detrimental to others who do not believe it if they are compelled to comply with the first person's beliefs through law or force.
Obi Wan Bergkamp posted: In the UK, much the same thing is said, except it's three times: Hatch; Match and Dispatch. - What is the fourth time for a Swede?
DarthPoojaNaberrie posted:many atheists give the impression that they know and it is very important to find ways to prove to the ignorant people that there is no higher power.
Vortigern99 posted:Also a good point, but of course this mode of thought had to evolve by degrees: first, as we see in animals and with La Chappelle, to members of one's family; next as with ancient Judaism to all members of one's tribe; then to one's entire multi-tribal nation; and finally to the whole world and everyone in it. This is a fine example of mimetic evolution in action.
Samir Okasha posted:Where human behaviour is concerned, the distinction between biological altruism, defined in terms of fitness consequences, and ‘real’ altruism, defined in terms of the agent's conscious intentions to help others, does make sense. (Sometimes the label ‘psychological altruism’ is used instead of ‘real’ altruism.) What is the relationship between these two concepts? They appear to be independent in both directions, as Elliott Sober (1994) has argued. An action performed with the conscious intention of helping another human being may not affect their biological fitness at all, so would not count as altruistic in the biological sense. Conversely, an action undertaken for purely self-interested reasons, i.e. without the conscious intention of helping another, may boost their biological fitness tremendously. Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e. who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism. Suppose there is an evolutionary advantage associated with taking good care of one's children -- a quite plausible idea. Then, parents who really do care about their childrens' welfare, i.e. who are ‘real’ altruists, will have a higher inclusive fitness, hence spread more of their genes, than parents who only pretend to care, or who do not care. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.
MasterZap posted:Obi Wan Bergkamp posted: In the UK, much the same thing is said, except it's three times: Hatch; Match and Dispatch. - What is the fourth time for a Swede? This is the bizzare part; Swedes are largely atheistic or at least "religiously apathetic", but the 4:th time is confirmation, which, paradoxically enough, the religious ceremony to "confirm" that you are a christian.
