What if kindness isn’t much of a learned virtue but a natural instinct?
Some animals practice kindness despite of never having to bear witness to willfull ignorance of the religious articles cruelty.
luckily for human beings, we are above instinct. which is why we know that it has a source.
but an animal is at base instinct level. he does because he is wired to, not because he has rationalised it in his mind. and he is very selective at it.
I beg to differ, we aren’t above it.
We are actively swimming in it regardless of our lofty ambitions, we are but nature’s worst mistake.
A species that developed a sense of awareness and thus got dislodged from the natural balance.
Little wonder we are ruining the globe with unmatched zeal!
how can you be a mistake of something that is inanimate? you can only be a mistake if you came out not as expected, or when you shouldn’t have.
that sense of awareness, riddle me, how did it develop? and why humans and not frogs? if it developed in us, will it develop in others? if so, when?
Which animal practise kindness? I would guess, none! Kindness and the virtues we espouse are social constructs. They are outcomes of social conditioning thus they are environment-dependent. In short, they are learned. Question, are kids born with any level kindness, collective sense or compassion? To conclude, these virtues are not instinctive
Kindness and all human virtues precede religion. However, religion has been sued to reinforce and strengthen this traits
I don’t claim to have all answers yet, but the human race is askew in comparison to flora and fauna.
The only difference is our self awareness and this provides space for grand delusion
Animals do practice kindness, for example a dog and its owner
Yes religion at that time was tasked with a commission to safeguard acceptable morals, but at what cost and do the changing times allow us to evolve past that commission
I am not religious neither am I an atheist. I consider myself an agnostic. I believe that atheism runs counter to my scientific philosophy. I still believe that religion may have one or two benefits to give society. However, it is not indespensable. It has been associated with negative outcomes. I believe that in tbe presence of strong institutions, religion would be less important
Well I am of the same opinion, Religion must pave way to accommodate morality. It was after all an instrument
of?
Instructions on human virtues
so if it is the instrument for instruction on human virtues/morality, if you do away with it, you have no instrument. or what do you plan to use as an alternative?
In as far as kindness is defined as helping someone, then yes, we as social animals have such an instinct, it’s not learned, if anything learning just reinforces it. In fact, it’s evolutionary benefit is obvious, it’s in your best interests to help others.
The same with language, it’s an inate ability to communicate, if not practiced then you gradually lose it like feral kids.
You do realize one can be an Agnostic Atheist though, right? Atheist, Theist & Deist all belong in that category of belief whilst being Agnostic/Gnostic belongs to that of knowledge, but all are under the umbrella term of religion. For instance, one can be an Agnostic Theist which means they do believe in a God though don’t have that sufficient knowledge to claim/prove they/s/he exist.
Good point but I’m simply agnostic
This may be subject to debate but I’m not qualified to defend it further
And sure…you can simply be that :D:D:D. I just wanted to clarify because I realized we tend alot to place an Agnostic & Atheist in the same category…different meaning but same category.
If you get rid of a cancer, what do you replace it with?