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?

I claim that the Christian religion has failed to teach empathy; one of the most important moral concepts we have.

Why do you think empathy is "one of the most important moral concepts we have"?

Why do you think empathy is "one of the most important moral concepts we have"?

That is a good question for which I am not now prepared to answer in any depth.

I will just say that we must understand our enemies as well as our friends if we are to prevent terrible destruction and death. I cannot think of a moral concept that trumps that . I am convinced that many of the wars of the 20th century could have easily been avoided by empathy and I cannot think of any other moral concept that can match that.

Why do you think empathy is "one of the most important moral concepts we have"?

Because lack of empathy = selfishness.
Hitler had no empathy for the Jews.

But the OP could have merely put 'Christianity has failed.' and still been right.

Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions reinforce our Stone Age instinct of tribalism. As demographic groups with obvious exceptions for some individuals, Christians, Muslims and Jews are capable of feeling empathy for members of their own tribe, but not members of other tribes. "Tribe" sometimes means "all Christians," "all Muslims," "all Jews," but often it only includes a certain denomination within the religion, such as Catholic, Sunni or Orthodox.

This in a nutshell is how these religions have failed us. They may have been positive forces in the distant past, when shared beliefs could create harmony and cooperation between neighboring tribes. But as the tribes merged and expanded, these religions no longer have the power to unite their own membership, much less encourage cooperation outside the tribe.

At a time when it is necessary to unite all of humanity into a single community to ensure peace and prosperity, the Abrahamic religions have halted the advance of civilization and stalled us at the tribal stage.

I know that the messages attributed to the prophets of these religions often urge their followers to live in harmony with people outside the tribe. But one must judge a religion by the behavior of its members, not the good intentions of its founders.

Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions reinforce our Stone Age instinct of tribalism. As demographic groups with obvious exceptions for some individuals, Christians, Muslims and Jews are capable of feeling empathy for members of their own tribe, but not members of other tribes. "Tribe" sometimes means "all Christians," "all Muslims," "all Jews," but often it only includes a certain denomination within the religion, such as Catholic, Sunni or Orthodox.

This in a nutshell is how these religions have failed us. They may have been positive forces in the distant past, when shared beliefs could create harmony and cooperation between neighboring tribes. But as the tribes merged and expanded, these religions no longer have the power to unite their own membership, much less encourage cooperation outside the tribe.

At a time when it is necessary to unite all of humanity into a single community to ensure peace and prosperity, the Abrahamic religions have halted the advance of civilization and stalled us at the tribal stage.

I know that the messages attributed to the prophets of these religions often urge their followers to live in harmony with people outside the tribe. But one must judge a religion by the behavior of its members, not the good intentions of its founders.


Do you think that they intentionaly stopped teaching empathy?

Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions reinforce our Stone Age instinct of tribalism.

...

But one must judge a religion by the behavior of its members, not the good intentions of its founders.

That's quite well put. I must agree. The 'tribalism' is a bit harder to spot nowadays, but if you look closely enough, you will see that it's still there. I believe it's a bit more apparent with the Muslim world than with Xians or Jews, but none of them can remain blameless.

Do you think that they intentionaly stopped teaching empathy?
Not exactly. I just think some of the followers from each religion got so caught up in their idealisms and interpretations of their bibles, that it just sort of evolved. Kinda like the KKK. I mean they are supposed to be Christians, but their viewpoint somehow got very skewed.
A lot of my family members are die hard Christians, but they seem to have the 'live and let live' policy pretty down pat. My aunt Dora's daughter actually married and had a child with a Sunni Muslim from the UAE. Whenever he was here with us, we still treated him like family.

That is a good question for which I am not now prepared to answer in any depth.

If you are going to argue about the necessity or importance of empathy, then I think you better have some justification for why it is necessary or important.


I will just say that we must understand our enemies as well as our friends if we are to prevent terrible destruction and death. I cannot think of a moral concept that trumps that .

You seem to think that "terrible destruction" and "death" are something to be avoided.
I'm not asking this in idleness, I'd just like to understand the ethical perspective you are coming from:
Why should people strive to avoid "terrible destruction" and "death"?


There are people who do not believe in the importance of empathy, or that "terrible destruction" and "death" are something to be avoided.
What arguments would you use to convince them otherwise?

Because if you want for people to live in peace, and you think this is to be achieved by means of empathy - then you'll have to convince those people who do not -yet- believe in the importance of empathy. How do you suggest or plan to do that?

Because lack of empathy = selfishness.

What exactly is wrong with selfishness?

Again, I'm not asking this idleness. I would like to understand your perspective and see what arguments you have to support it.

If you are going to argue about the necessity or importance of empathy, then I think you better have some justification for why it is necessary or important.




You seem to think that "terrible destruction" and "death" are something to be avoided.
I'm not asking this in idleness, I'd just like to understand the ethical perspective you are coming from:
Why should people strive to avoid "terrible destruction" and "death"?


There are people who do not believe in the importance of empathy, or that "terrible destruction" and "death" are something to be avoided.
What arguments would you use to convince them otherwise?

Because if you want for people to live in peace, and you think this is to be achieved by means of empathy - then you'll have to convince those people who do not -yet- believe in the importance of empathy. How do you suggest or plan to do that?

Are you joking?

Are you joking?

Not at all.

The moral indignation that one feels might be strong, but it hardly makes for a convincing argument.

Political etc. movements all over history and the planet are counting on moral indignation - from environmentalists to feminists. Yet what do they accomplish? Often, not much. This is because they fail to convince the opposing party.

I'd still like to see your answers to the questions I asked earlier.

Do you think that they intentionaly stopped teaching empathy?No. I think it was just their inner caveman that got the better of their forebrains. Christianity and Islam (but not Judaism) are evangelical religions. Each of their prophets is quoted as directing his followers to convert all of humanity to his religion. This reinforces the caveman's natural instinct to see the world divided into tribes, in this case tribes who are already Christians (or Muslims) versus tribes who must be converted. Once the atavistic tribal instinct is given permission to manifest, it can emerge in all of its Stone Age glory and revive the whole gamut of tribal behaviors, including protecting your tribe's scarce hunting and gathering territory from encroachment, protecting your tribe's hard-won food surplus from raiding, and protecting your tribe's lovely females from seduction. If the other tribe happens to also practice an evangelical religion, their evangelism appears to you as aggression and you feel justified in fighting back with physical violence.

Once people start thinking this way--considering people of other religions to be enemies--the admonitions of Jesus and Mohammed to practice empathy in order to live in peace with their neighbors are simply too easy to forget.

We don't have quite enough data to judge the Jews on this criterion. Since their religion is not evangelical, their population has not grown the way the Christians and Muslims have and they have rarely been in a position to practice caveman morality. However, judging by the current events in the modern state of Israel, it's easy to wonder whether a world with a billion Jews would be just as harsh as one with a billion Muslims and/or a couple of billion Christians.

Not at all.

The moral indignation that one feels might be strong, but it hardly makes for a convincing argument.

Political etc. movements all over history and the planet are counting on moral indignation - from environmentalists to feminists. Yet what do they accomplish? Often, not much. This is because they fail to convince the opposing party.

I'd still like to see your answers to the questions I asked earlier.

I assume that religion is the primary teacher of morality in the US society.

I am convinced that empathy is one of the principle concepts of morality.

Evidence indicates that less than 10% of Americans know the difference between empathy and sympathy.

Christianity is the principal religion in the US.

Ergo Christianity has failed to teach empathy.

Empathy is about understanding. We empathesize with our best friend and we must empathesize with our worst enemy. We can more easily manage an enemy when we understand that enemy.

A Ritual To Read To Each Other

If you don't know the kind of person I am
and I don't know the kind of person you are
a pattern that others made may prevail in the world
and following the wrong god home we may miss our star.

For there is many a small betrayal in the mind,
a shrug that lets the fragile sequence break
sending with shouts the horrible errors of childhood
storming out to play through the broken dyke.

And as elephants parade holding each elephant's tail,
but if one wanders the circus won't find the park,
I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty
to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.

And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider?
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.

For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give, yes or no, or maybe
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.
-William Stafford

Do you think that they intentionaly stopped teaching empathy?

I think many religions teach to be discriminate with empathy, ie. to not blindly have empathy for just anyone.

Christians do have empathy. Just not for everyone.
Nazis did have empathy. Just not for everyone.
And so on.

If you want to successfully promote empathy, you have to give people plausible reasons for why they should have empathy for everyone; you have to give them plausible reasons for having indiscriminate empathy.

What are your reasons for having indiscriminate empathy?

Empathy is about understanding. We empathesize with our best friend and we must empathesize with our worst enemy. We can more easily manage an enemy when we understand that enemy.

There are people who would rather die than surrender. For example, this is what the Japanese troops did until the Emperor caved in in WWII.

Back then, Western anthropologists have studied the Japanese in order to understand them, and so to come up with a way to "manage" them. Turns out it was impossible to "manage" them, other than to kill them.

Empathy accomplishes nothing in the case of an enemy who would rather die than surrender.

I think many religions teach to be discriminate with empathy, ie. to not blindly have empathy for just anyone.

Christians do have empathy. Just not for everyone.
Nazis did have empathy. Just not for everyone.
And so on.

If you want to successfully promote empathy, you have to give people plausible reasons for why they should have empathy for everyone; you have to give them plausible reasons for having indiscriminate empathy.

What are your reasons for having indiscriminate empathy?

You are not reading my post. Empathy is about understanding. We understand our friends and should, for security reasons at least, also understand our enemies.

There are people who would rather die than surrender. For example, this is what the Japanese troops did until the Emperor caved in in WWII. Back then, Western anthropologists have studied the Japanese in order to understand them, and so to come up with a way to "manage" them. Turns out it was impossible to "manage" them, other than to kill them. Empathy accomplishes nothing in the case of an enemy who would rather die than surrender.There is a prominent school of thought that says American leaders did in fact establish empathy with the Japanese, that it informed their decisions about the course of the war, and that in the long run it minimized casualties.

This is not necessarily my own personal view but here's how it is is generally told:

We understood that the Japanese would never surrender. We would have to keep killing them until the last six-year-old girl was gunned down while charging a batallion of Marines with her dead daddy's samurai sword.

We didn't want that. Not only did the U.S. not really want eighty million Japanese casualties (or whatever the population was, something in that range) but we didn't want the ten or twenty million American casualties that it would have taken to completely exterminate the Japanese people. We also didn't really want to become famous for genocide.

What to do?

Well, we knew that the Japanese placed a great value on honor, and they had a cultural bias to assume that everyone, even their most evil enemies, had a sense of honor.

Bingo. Let's show the Japanese that they are fighting an enemy with absolutely no honor. Let's drop impersonal nuclear weapons on civilian targets, killing hundreds of thousands of their people who have no warning, who have no chance to fight back even ritually, who never even see their killers.

Once the Japanese realized that we had changed the rules of warfare, that in fact we had declared that there are no rules, they realized that there would be no honor in fighting us to the death. They soon surrendered.

So, as the story goes, our empathy for the Japanese resulted in our use of nuclear weapons. We sacrificed our own honor in order to save the lives of tens of millions of people.

As I said, I'm not sure I agree with this. I can't help wondering whether more creative leaders could have found a better solution. But this is how the story goes.

Empathy is about understanding. We understand our friends and should, for security reasons at least, also understand our enemies.

To understand someone, one needs their feedback; the other person needs to confirm that our interpretation of their position is accurate.

All this means that communication is necessary.
How do you suggest to communicate (at all) with someone who is one's enemy?

There is a prominent school of thought that says American leaders did in fact establish empathy with the Japanese, that it informed their decisions about the course of the war, and that in the long run it minimized casualties.

This is not necessarily my own personal view but here's how it is is generally told:

We understood that the Japanese would never surrender. We would have to keep killing them until the last six-year-old girl was gunned down while charging a batallion of Marines with her dead daddy's samurai sword.

We didn't want that. Not only did the U.S. not really want eighty million Japanese casualties (or whatever the population was, something in that range) but we didn't want the ten or twenty million American casualties that it would have taken to completely exterminate the Japanese people. We also didn't really want to become famous for genocide.

What to do?

Well, we knew that the Japanese placed a great value on honor, and they had a cultural bias to assume that everyone, even their most evil enemies, had a sense of honor.

Bingo. Let's show the Japanese that they are fighting an enemy with absolutely no honor. Let's drop impersonal nuclear weapons on civilian targets, killing hundreds of thousands of their people who have no warning, who have no chance to fight back even ritually, who never even see their killers.

Once the Japanese realized that we had changed the rules of warfare, that in fact we had declared that there are no rules, they realized that there would be no honor in fighting us to the death. They soon surrendered.

So, as the story goes, our empathy for the Japanese resulted in our use of nuclear weapons. We sacrificed our own honor in order to save the lives of tens of millions of people.

As I said, I'm not sure I agree with this. I can't help wondering whether more creative leaders could have found a better solution. But this is how the story goes.

I haven't heard of this interpretation yet. Thanks.

To understand someone, one needs their feedback; the other person needs to confirm that our interpretation of their position is accurate.

All this means that communication is necessary.
How do you suggest to communicate (at all) with someone who is one's enemy?

Nonsense. Communication would help but is not a necessary condition.


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.

Nonsense. Communication would help but is not a necessary condition.

You think you can unilaterally declare that you understand someone,
regardless of whether they agree that you have understood them or not?