Secular folks should worry.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I suppose that the one thing that I see as problematic is the now popular presentation of ‘victims’ and perpetrators of victimhood and all that this entails.

[MG 2.0]

https://news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/re ... enerosity/

I’m familiar with these folks at Berkeley. They have done much good for secularists and the scientifically minded that live in the world and want serve and do good. The actual nuts and bolts of the research seem to be hidden behind a paywall of some sort. Only the study results seem to be readily a available.

The first study that is mentioned dealing with empathy had to do with two groups and their response to those in need. The non religious groups response was dependent on whether or not they actually had some kind of emotional connection with those that were in need of help. An attachment.

Not being able to look at how the study was carried out, however, is problematic.

A scripture immediately came to mind:

43 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Were those in the study providing service and love to those that might be considered to be their enemy in one way or another? Jesus took it a step or two further than giving ‘comfortable’ service.

Anyway, I will look a bit more, but my instinct, knowing that it came out of Berkeley and was printed in a journal that specifically appeals to the scientifically inclined rather than the religiously inclined causes me to think that this study was designed by and carried out by secular humanists. Not that this is in and of itself suspicious, but one might think they have an agenda and thus might be likely to design and implement their experiments in order to result in outcomes that correlate with their worldview.

That the participants apparently responded on an emotional level rather than a moral responsibility level limits the scope of their service and overall influence for good. In the real world this has massive implications.

Jesus asked us to do both. Love those that we have an emotional connection with AND those that we don’t. In the study it was mentioned that the religious tended to respond more at a moral responsibility level. Not that emotion may not have also been a factor.

This makes a huge difference.

The implications the Deseret News article said that secularists ought to be concerned with still stand. As of yet I don’t think anyone here has given much more than a wink and a nod to the article and its possible implications for civil society.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Keep digging.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think this whole thread can be summarized thusly:



- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Keep digging.

By the way, lest there be any confusion. I am a science guy. I’ve always loved learning of the natural world and our place in it.

But a study that is strictly science based (language and meaning) in its formulation and presented by a secular organization (at least to my knowledge) is going to run the risk of implicit bias.

Not being able to see the nuts and bolts of the study puts one at a disadvantage. However, I think my comments in regards to the summary, at least for the first experiment that was done, has merit.

Again, as I said previously, I do have admiration and respect for the Greater Good Science Center and the positive influence they have had over the years. But they are coming at things from an ‘angle’.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Quoted from a recent post:

If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, you’re not a good person.

I see a certain amount of truth to this statement. But it also implicitly says that a person of faith cannot be a good person. Even if they are inherently good because of their own inward desire to be good.

That is false.

In other words, religious people can, believe it or not, be good for the right reasons.

But as I said in a recent post, we also may do things out of moral and ethical obligation. Even to those that we may not really feel bonded to on a personal level. We serve those that may be our enemies along with those that we really don’t have to think twice about serving.

We are all children of God and deserve due respect and needed service when the occasion presents itself. Easier said than done in some instances. But that’s what Jesus taught.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Quoted from a recent post:

If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, you’re not a good person.

I see a certain amount of truth to this statement. But it also implicitly says that a person of faith cannot be a good person.

No. It doesn't.

[Marcus]

Quoted from a recent post:

If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, you’re not a good person.

I see a certain amount of truth to this statement. But it also implicitly says that a person of faith cannot be a good person. Even if they are inherently good because of their own inward desire to be good.

That is false.

In other words, religious people can, believe it or not, be good for the right reasons.

your interpretation is incorrect. Of course both religious and non religious people can be good.

But as I said in a recent post, we also may do things out of moral and ethical obligation.

of course. This holds for both religious and nonreligious people.

Even to those that we may not really feel bonded to on a personal level.

of course. This holds for both religious and nonreligious people.

We serve those that may be our enemies along with those that we really don’t have to think twice about serving.

of course. This holds for both religious and nonreligious people.

We are all children of God and deserve due respect and needed service when the occasion presents itself.

of course. Even if not everyone believes in children of god asa concept, both religious and nonreligious people belive respect is due, as well as service.

Easier said than done in some instances. But that’s what Jesus taught.

doesn't matter who taught it if its in your heart.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Quoted from a recent post:

If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, you’re not a good person.

I see a certain amount of truth to this statement. But it also implicitly says that a person of faith cannot be a good person. Even if they are inherently good because of their own inward desire to be good.

That is false.

In other words, religious people can, believe it or not, be good for the right reasons.

But as I said in a recent post, we also may do things out of moral and ethical obligation. Even to those that we may not really feel bonded to on a personal level. We serve those that may be our enemies along with those that we really don’t have to think twice about serving.

We are all children of God and deserve due respect and needed service when the occasion presents itself. Easier said than done in some instances. But that’s what Jesus taught.

Regards,
MG

doink

Right off MG’s dome..

- Doc

[Morley]

I am a science guy.

If you were a 'science guy,' you wouldn't write this:

But a study that is strictly science based (language and meaning) in its formulation and presented by a secular organization (at least to my knowledge) is going to run the risk of implicit bias.