h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Probably because there appear to be so many religious people happy to use their religion as a justification for bigotry. Homophobia is rife throughout religions, as is misogyny and racism. Very few religions don't proscribe some behaviour or another. It's true that the majority of believers don't necessarily propound these views, but a vocal minority will leave that impression on outsiders.

It's like politics. If people claiman affiliation to a political party it is often assumed that they believe all of that party's ideologies to it's wildest excesses, when it is often not the case.

christianity definitely encourages people to be compassionate, on the face of it. i think the biggest problem is that it doesn't always help people understand HOW. and it's possible to believe some things are right or wrong without "hating the sinner."

i think stealth meant that there will always be people who are hateful based on religion, not that every religious person is like that. but if it's possible for this to change, thinking that it can't will certainly stand in the way.

One thing that should give us some grounds for some optimism is that society does seem, in many cases, to have become more compassionate than it might have been 500 years ago or 100 years ago. I'm going to acknowledge *straight away* that there are huge numbers of people living in anything but a compassionate society, but even still in general there have been advances in the developed world (slowly trickling into the developing world and in some cases supposedly advanced economies) that would have been unheard of a few centuries ago,such as:

* Universal charter of human rights
* Intolerance towards the beating or abuse of children
* Compulsory education of children
* Abolition of the death penalty
* Constutional democracy : A say in who runs your country
* Health care safety nets
* Social welfare safety nets
* Anti-racism movements
* Humanitarian aid agencies
* Environmental pollution controls
* Clean water and food hygiene systems
* The right to protest
* The right to have a defence councel
* War crimes tribunals

A lot more to be done, but it's a good start. I'm sure if people from an earlier age were to look at this, they would be very encouraged.

Woodpigeon

In my experiance being abused only leads to a hate on the self and a hate of those who are abusers those who are abused tend to have a great deal of compassion. Especially for those that need it most.

Peaople that klive in desperate circumstances covers a wide range of people. Some have arrived in that in that situation through no fault of there own, indeed most have. In some a hate is fostered. Perhaps for valid reasons. Do I believe that these are "intrinsically hateful"? No.

Do I believe there are people who will always on some level have a hate for someone, some group or body of people and treat them without compassion when the oppertunity is there.
There will always be people that do not want to change themselves, their way of life or ther e society so that it doesn't foster a hatred.

Adelaide, in the Great Britain there are only a minority of people that live by the doctrine, the dogma laid down by the scrptures of the major religeons. So that may be people of faith, but they are not as such religeous. By religeous I mean evangelicals, religeous conservatives, zealots and fanaticists. These are not a minority of people on globals terms, they are religeous majority. And if I were to take say the teachings of such people on homosexuality as an example they believe that such people are an abomination before god, they do not teach tolerance for people who live that life, they teach hatred.

Not to disregard your experience, Stealth, but it's been my experience that people who've been abused tend to *look* for someone weaker whom they can abuse in order to feel somehow more empowered in themselves. I happen to think that that comes from a social mindset that's based on competition, on the idea that in order to be a winner one *has* to have a loser.

In my opinion, the only feasible way to 'teach' compassion would be to first create an environment in which there wouldn't have to be losers. There's something to be said for working towards mutual benefit for all participants (but then you get the dilemma of what to do with those who choose not to participate, which I haven't figured out what to do with yet). Part of that would be accepting that not everyone is bringing the same assets to the table, but that they all have their value and are valid. Another part is figuring out how it all fits together for a common good.

I figure that, on a small scale at least, if individuals would learn how it's in their own self interest, based in expending their energy on creating a locally beneficial environment in which they maximized the talents, efforts, and assets of those around them towards mutual prosperity, then they might just be able to grasp the underlying principle and extend it towards people who distinctly aren't them, and come up with a damn good reason to practice compassion.

Mmm. I think those people hate themselves too, but have developed antisocial personality disorder, out of a need to have the security of being o up on the people around them. They will display compassion, but are really trying to be manipulative.
I have difficulty feeling compassion for these people, as few of them would be willing to admit they need help.

In those terms, in my opinion, there are dangers both in always winning and always losing.

Someone who's known only the lows, of course they're going to be either bitter and angry or resigned. Someone who hasn't tasted the lows, how are they going to learn to empathise with people?

I wasn't very clear. It's not feasible to create an environment where being a loser isn't possible. There are plenty of situations where competition is inherent. Also, it's possible to try and fail, or to not try at all. Just, it's not necessary to set up *every* situation as competetive rather than cooperative, and I think that, here in the USA at least, we tend to do that without even thinking about it.

I had the opportunity to put it into practice when I became manager of a small group. I'd been warned upon accepting the job that I'd have a rough time motivating the group. They were all much older than I was, and had been working in the field much longer, and were basically waiting for retirement. When I chose to use contests to motivate them to produce one of them was excited and the others didn't give a damn. I found out that always in the past the contests had been geared towards whoever did the most, and the one *always* won. So I made the contests objective, set high but attainable goals, and rewarded everyone who achieved that level. It took 6 months for my team to go from the bottom of the growth-trend ladder to second place in the corporation. Made me look awfully good, but also it totally changed the interpersonal dynamic at our workplace and we truly became a team with a common goal rather than a group of back-biting, selfish individuals. Everyone earned pay raises due to increased productivity, and we were all winners.

<>

The belief that religious people are like hat (hating people who live "sinful" lives) appears to be widely believed here on h2g2. Why, I just don't know!



Adelaide he was asking a question thats what the "?" thing is at the end for. Will you ever understand that???????????????????????????????

You could have answered lots. As I would have not all spiritual or religious people are hard line, bigoted, zealous, nut jobs. Some dont sit in judgement and call women who have terminations murders or use racist abuse, but some do dont they. I guess that is why even the ones who *dont* kill people for being from other religions or preach hate against them get tarred with the same brush. It boils down to the idiots who think their meager knowledge of their little books give them the wisdom to judge everyone and everything as if they were an expert and when someone questions their judgement they cite doctrine or scripture as supporting eveidence.

Hope this helps.

onelove

<>

Please, don't lump evangelicals and all the rest together! They are on a continuum, and not all 'fanaticists.' How do you know they all 'teach hatred'? To a person (Christian, Jewish, Muslim or even Hindu) who believes that say, the homosexual lifestyle is unacceptable, the media portrayal of it as not just equal to, but *better than* (and such portrayal does sometimes take place)is abominable. That's how it is, but such an opinion seldom translates into "hatred" for the individual.

I find that level of parsimonious hair splitting vile. "We don't hate you, we just believe that the lifestyle you, the person you love, and many of your friends is abominable. And you are all going to burn in hell for all eternity. No offence."

But I suppose that I'm guilty of hypocrisy here. I don't hate religious people for themselves, I just think that their beliefs are ignorant, medieval, hypocritical and viciously immoral. No offence.

Good shot sir .

I must agree, maybe people don't get much choice in their beliefs, but its still a reflection of who you are. Monothesists don't have so many enemies because they're persecuted, but because they set themselves up against everyone. The majority of christians I've talked to, for instance, believe that everybody is born inherantly wrong/evil/sinful/whatever. I mean what does that say about a person if that's the sort of thing that makes sense to them.

maybe people don't get much choice in their beliefs??

everyone has choices. if many people choose to accept rather than question things that are handed to them easily -- maybe they've even been conditioned to do so from an early age by learning all about "faith" -- that doesn't mean they didn't have a choice. everyone may be a product of experience and intrinsic qualities, but we still believe there's a free will in there somewhere -- i hope.

someone pointed out that bad experiences are necessary for empathy. it's this free will (or maybe it's individual differences) that allows people to choose whether they will take their bad experiences and be bitter and turn that on other people, or use them to be understanding of others' suffering. some people who are bitter grow to hate those that are in a position they once held and hated; not wanting to be reminded of that kind of pain, they blame the victims, rationalizing that they are weak or misguided or otherwise deserving. i don't think we're at any risk of removing bad experiences, but hopefully we can have some say in the way people deal with them.

jeenius
My thoughts exactly.

One thing people can do to learn compassion, whether the're operating under a value system that they've carefully evaluated and deliberately chosen for its integrity, or just accepting wholesale the system their family or culture embedded in them, is to think about how precisely they themselves manage to adhere to the morals they claim to live by. Unless they are perfect in every way during every moment of their lives, it becomes much easier to understand how someone else can make other kinds of choices when faced with difficulties.

The fate of humanity ?

To die mewling and puking in its own filth whilst pathetically denying its own guilt.

That's horribly likely, McKay, although I would like to think otherwise...
Look at the ubiquity of war!

Blicky, I love those quotes you put in the second post, might just pinch them.
As for the fate of humanity, how many people have read Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Almost Everything'? There are two relevant sections - when he is discussing evolution and when he is discussing extinctions. While talking about evolution he comes up with a great line '...but as far as we can tell we are the pinnacle, we are simultaneously the universe's best biological achievement and its worst nightmare' As far as we can tell, we are the most advanced species in the Universe. The most emphatic point he makes is sbout extinctions, and I agree with him when he says that what does eventually wipe us out will be nothing to do with us. As powerful as we are 'life is extraordinarily hardy, we are hard to kill'

Oh, life is extremely hardy. Humanity is quite frail though, it is quite possible for humanity to do itself in.

I've been meaning to get hold of that book for yonks!

<<(a) can compassion be taught? and (b) is everyone willing or able to learn compassion?>>

Compassion can be learned (in fact I think it always is) but I'm not sure it can be taught. The person who learns compassion has usually reached a place of self-awareness and understanding that allows them to, say, empathise rather than sympathise. I suppose people can be instructed on how to reach this 'place' but it seems that many get there anyhow, without any sort of formal instruction. I think the most effective way to 'teach' compassion is simply by setting an example.

Possibly we are all able to learn compassion but certainly many are not willing. I reckon it's fear that stops most people from being compassionate. And it would indeed be impossible to remove all fear from the world.


az