Replies

But we certainly can see examples of empathy in the case of animals which possess a certain minimum level of intelligence. When we see a chimp in a lab attempting to help a strange human reaching for an object, we're seeing an animal comprehending the need of the human and responding to it.

When we see elephants standing guard for days over an unrelated fallen comrade against people attempting to sedate and collar it, we see animals comprehending and responding to the plight of their fellow.

No they're not. They're instinctively protecting the species. I don't see elephants banding together to protect the antelope population from cheetahs, do you? If they comprehend that, why aren't they banding together to hunt and kill poachers?

These are the beginnings of the thought processes which humans, with our greater levels of intelligence, eventually developed into the concepts of compassion and morality.

How do these thoughts make the leap from instinct to "compassion and morality". If it's possible, why are there no species "in transit", so to speak, from mere brutes to Hallmark Greeting Card designers? If you're postulating that this takes place, you must have an opinion of what agent affects the change, don't you? Since the earth is alive, does it have instinct? Can it develop instinct? Why or why not?

Such concepts always boil down, in the end, to treating our fellows as we would wish to be treated.

Terrifyingly simple, isn't it? Unfortunately, the tack of human history has been to treat others in ways we would never want to be treated, which makes the concept of a God who preaches something different an idea worthy of crucifying to a cross.

And these concepts are not always fostered by religions, which may decree death for non-believers, subjugation of non-believers, promote unfair hierarchies among the believers, etc.

Depends on the religion. That's why moral relativism is a sham. There can only be One Truth.

Acting under fear of punishment is at the heart of the argument of those who claim religion is the source of human morality and ethics.

They argue wrongly. The source of human morality and ethics is nature's desire to mimic what created it. Thus, the child yearns on one level to mimic his/her parent. At a deeper level, the soul yearns to mimic God, in Whose image - perfect goodness - it was created. When teenagers decide to stop mimicking their parents, it's called rebellion, and often leads to imprudent decisions and dangerous outcomes. The same happens when the soul decides to stop mimicking God by rejecting morality, and always leads to sin. The Prodigal Sin returned to the Father out of anxiety, but it didn't make the Father less worthy of his love. It wasn't until he had something to fear that he recognized the error of his ways. The element of fear in Religion is simply the acknowledgment (to whatever degree) that we are all Prodigal children who need the Father that created us.

without the fear of God's punishment (corporal or spiritual) to keep them in line, people would abandon all morality and run amok.

The reason people fear God's punishment is because they do abandon all morality and run amok. The saints had great peace of heart. Why's that I wonder?

Empathy involves emotion. What emotion is the chimp displaying? Pity? How do you know the chimp isn't reaching for it in competition? Did the chimp think, "oh, that poor, strange human. Let me give him a hand"?

Apparently it did. These were controlled experiments to see if chimps would help humans they'd never seen before. Some did.

No they're not. They're instinctively protecting the species. I don't see elephants banding together to protect the antelope population from cheetahs, do you?

I wouldn't expect to. Simply because some of us see all animals as the same doesn't mean they do. Elephants sometimes band together to protect individual members of their kind, as we do in our better moments. To expect elephants to protect members of other species when we ourselves, with all our intelligence and morality, fail to do so often is not realistic.

How do these thoughts make the leap from instinct to "compassion and morality".

I think it's clear that these thoughts aren't instinct. A survival instinct would direct the elephants to flee, as most herd animals do when a member of the herd is attacked. Instinct would prompt a chimp to either ignore the efforts of a human or other chimp, or steal the object being striven for.

If it's possible, why are there no species "in transit", so to speak, from mere brutes to Hallmark Greeting Card designers? If you're postulating that this takes place, you must have an opinion of what agent affects the change, don't you?

Thanks, but I'll decline this offer of another debate on evolution. Boring, and not the immediate topic of this thread.

Since the earth is alive, does it have instinct? Can it develop instinct? Why or why not?

Um...what? The earth is a sphere made of nickel and iron surrounded by a viscous mantle and topped by a relatively thin solid crust, the whole mass in orbit around a yellow dwarf star. While the earth's surface and near-surface play host to a large variety of inter-related life, the earth itself is not "alive" in any generally accepted sense.

Terrifyingly simple, isn't it? Unfortunately, the tack of human history has been to treat others in ways we would never want to be treated, which makes the concept of a God who preaches something different an idea worthy of crucifying to a cross.

In historical terms, Christ was apparently crucified because he challenged the Jewish and Roman religious and political authorities of the time. In the terms of the Christian religion, Christ was crucified as a sacrifice to absolve humanity of it's sins and to offer a path of salvation from those sins. I have yet to hear that Christ was crucified because he urged people to treat others as they would wish to be treated - it's a notion far older than Christianity.

At a deeper level, the soul yearns to mimic God, in Whose image - perfect goodness - it was created.

You're positing a motivation for an entity whose existence can't even be proven, based on the existence of another entity whose existence can't be proven. This is faith, and as such it can't be debated nor is it a valid argument.

The reason people fear God's punishment is because they do abandon all morality and run amok. The saints had great peace of heart. Why's that I wonder?

Perhaps because the histories of the saints usually aren't written by them, but by hagiographers. Certainly a soon-to-be saint, Mother Teresa, expressed her lack of such peace in her own words. In any event, I don't doubt that some people find tranquility in religious beliefs. I do doubt that those religious beliefs are required for a system of ethics and moral behavior.