Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:...but is this not the exchange you had with him?

Nope.

My sincere apologies. I checked back, and thedoc wrote two in a row, repeating the same claim. The natural flow of the conversation fooled me...but you are absolutely right.

I retract in sackcloth and ashes. I misrepresented you.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, I admit, of course, that the data is somewhat ambiguous in the limited sense that one can *choose* to see or not see what is there -- which is true for both religious and irreligous folks, of course.

uwot replied:The data is ambiguous because there may be any number of coherent theories to explain it, but I think you have to be clear; it is not what you see that you choose, it is how you interpret it.

I would agree. Yet it may also be the case that the data ought to incline us more to one view than the other, and *choosing* not to see that may take an extra effort of will. So, without specifying further which is which, we may fairly say that one view is, say, consonant with 60% of the data and the other only 40%. The 40%-er will have to exert the additional effort to "fight off" the impression left by the 60% of the evidence.

What's interesting is that Dawkins admits that the preponderance of the evidence (60%? 70%? 80%? whatever...) is strongly contrary to the conclusion he wishes to draw, and he admits that the Atheist will have to fight hard to retain his view that the world is all a product of accident. Yet I did believe that science was concerned with the preponderance of the evidence rather than with theories lacking in evidence. So again I would ask him, "Why *must* we fight the impression made by the preponderance of the evidence?"

To a degree, philosophy is about challenging those initial instincts, science is about testing them. The world is the way it is, even if some of the more whacko interpretations of QM turn out to be true and, perhaps, we actually do choose what we see.

Agreed. There are times when our instinctive reaction is not the right one, for sure. But I also think that if Dawkins is enjoining us to reject that reaction, especially when that reaction is (as he admits, very compelling) he would have to make an awfully strong case to warrant us dismissing it completely, would he not?

Immanuel Can wrote:
For example, you could *choose* to see these symbols you are decoding right now (i.e. my words) as random collision of non-symbolic lines produced by chance over many millennia, or you could choose to interpret them as intentional symbols arranged by an intelligence.

uwot replied: There is a difference; I can arrange my own intentional symbols. There is no ambiguity, as you suggest, because there is no feature of the natural world that can be confused with writing.

Well, there are a few, but I won't nitpick that. The problem for Naturalism, though, is entropy. The Entropic Principle, which is as solid an example of a genuinely verifiable scientific principle as we can find, holds that "nature" tends from a state of higher order to one of lower order. Yet Dawkins view implies that "nature," for billions of years, has "swum upstream" against the Law of Entropy, producing higher order from lower order.

In terms of parsimony materialism wins. There is nothing in the world that persuades me that Occam's Razor should be set aside and that entities must be multiplied of necessity.

Nope, you're not on my ignore list. No one is. Ouzo-man has come close because he never seems to offer anything but plugging for Ouzo, but I don't even ban him. Occam's Razor is only a ceteris parabus epistemological guideline, an all-things-being-equal probability suggestion, not some sort of rule of logic or scientific law. There are plenty of cases where the explanation for a thing is more complicated than the thing itself, so parsimony is far from being a universal value of reasons. What we need to decide, then, is whether we are dealing with a case for Occam's Razor or one of the many exceptions to Occam's Razor.

Occam doesn't shave clean.

Nobody has a preset worldview. We arrive at some axioms, god exists/god doesn't exist, for example and justify them post hoc. The data is the same for everybody, the fact that we can interpret it so differently is proof of ambiguity, but as I was saying to Harry Baird, there is no evidence for god. Perhaps I should add 'and only god'.

I wonder what you mean by "preset"? Do you mean "at birth," or do you mean that no one comes "on the basis of evidence,"? On the face of it, I might agree with you...but I can't tell yet.

If we mean here by "data" simply the facts of the natural world evident to consciousness, I agree that we all have access to that. I would also agree that such "data" is capable of being read ambiguously -- though, as Dawkins suggests, not without a strong mental effort to deny the appearance of design, for (as he says) the ambiguity is not an equal one. The statement "there is no evidence for God" must be a claim on your part about what other people do or do not know, which would seem irrational. Yet you are asking rational questions, so I cannot suppose that's what you mean.

Could you be meaning to say, "I don't know any evidence for God?" In that case, we could agree, because I am in no position to contradict you on that. However, I and a whole lot of other Theists make the contrary claim: that both in an evidentiary way and in a personal-experience way, we do see the evidence for God. This leads to the perplexing situation wherein we see a whole lot of Atheists attempting (as Dawkins admits to doing) to refuse the strong impression offered by the evidence. And we naturally wonder why they insist on doing so.

Sorry to keep butting in but I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made. Data being read ambiguously is the basis of a HYPOTHESIS . Having many different hypotheses are fine, but when it comes to science we have to choose the hypothesis that best can be formulated into a scientific THEORY. This is the important distinction when it comes to science.

In the final analysis the theory should be able to fit the observations and make predictions. If it doesn't then it is of no value in scientific terms.

If the most likely hypothesis cannot be tested, fit observational evidence and make predictions then from a scientific point of view you must go with the least likely hypothesis ( if there is only a choice of two). Provided the least likely hypothesis can be turned into a theory that fits the observations and can make predictions.

Within such a scenario science has no choice but to go with the hypothesis that can be turned into a theory.

Immanuel Can wrote:... I did believe that science was concerned with the preponderance of the evidence rather than with theories lacking in evidence.

Science is not metaphysics. As far as we are able to tell, it doesn't make any difference to the way the world behaves whether there is a god or not. It may be that we reach a stage of technological versatility such that there are things which happen that we can only attribute to a cause we cannot master, because it has a will of it's own. Don't hold your breath. In the meantime, for all that it looks to some people as though there is some agency behind the natural world, there is no way of telling and if it makes no difference to science, it isn't science.

Immanuel Can wrote:There are times when our instinctive reaction is not the right one, for sure. But I also think that if Dawkins is enjoining us to reject that reaction, especially when that reaction is (as he admits, very compelling) he would have to make an awfully strong case to warrant us dismissing it completely, would he not?

If Dawkins feels that way, that's his business; personally, I don't feel any such reaction.

Immanuel Can wrote:

uwot wrote:There is no ambiguity, as you suggest, because there is no feature of the natural world that can be confused with writing.

Well, there are a few, but I won't nitpick that.

No, do!

Immanuel Can wrote:The problem for Naturalism, though, is entropy. The Entropic Principle, which is as solid an example of a genuinely verifiable scientific principle as we can find, holds that "nature" tends from a state of higher order to one of lower order. Yet Dawkins view implies that "nature," for billions of years, has "swum upstream" against the Law of Entropy, producing higher order from lower order.

One of the remarkable things about living things is that they manage to organise matter/energy in the way they do, but it is not in violation of thermodynamics. One way to appreciate this is to consider your dinner, what your body will do with it and whether the outcome is more orderly than the input.

Immanuel Can wrote:Occam's Razor is only a ceteris parabus epistemological guideline, an all-things-being-equal probability suggestion, not some sort of rule of logic or scientific law. There are plenty of cases where the explanation for a thing is more complicated than the thing itself, so parsimony is far from being a universal value of reasons.

What do you have in mind?

Immanuel Can wrote:I wonder what you mean by "preset"? Do you mean "at birth," or do you mean that no one comes "on the basis of evidence,"? On the face of it, I might agree with you...but I can't tell yet.

It was your word, I took you to mean "at birth".

Immanuel Can wrote:The statement "there is no evidence for God" must be a claim on your part about what other people do or do not know, which would seem irrational. Yet you are asking rational questions, so I cannot suppose that's what you mean.

I did qualify this by saying: "there is no evidence for god. Perhaps I should add 'and only god'." I've said elsewhere that evidence can support any metaphysical claim that doesn't specifically exclude it.

Immanuel Can wrote:Could you be meaning to say, "I don't know any evidence for God?" In that case, we could agree, because I am in no position to contradict you on that. However, I and a whole lot of other Theists make the contrary claim: that both in an evidentiary way and in a personal-experience way, we do see the evidence for God.

Then let's see it.

Immanuel Can wrote:This leads to the perplexing situation wherein we see a whole lot of Atheists attempting (as Dawkins admits to doing) to refuse the strong impression offered by the evidence. And we naturally wonder why they insist on doing so.

Because some theists believe that their understanding of reality demands that they tell other people how to run their lives.

Ginkgo wrote:Sorry to keep butting in but I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made between.

Just so, Ginkgo; I shall tighten up my language.

One of the remarkable things about living things is that they manage to organise matter/energy in the way they do, but it is not in violation of thermodynamics. One way to appreciate this is to consider your dinner, what your body will do with it and whether the outcome is more orderly than the input.

Ah, but our bodies are *already* complex systems. If your objection were on point, it would suggest that the order of the universe is constructed out of an already-ordered-being, which, of course, is similar to what Theists would say: order comes from an order-causing God.

P.S. -- The nitpick: It's a minor point, but take, for example primitive cave-writing: some of it is so vague that only an archaeologist could recognize that it is the product of intelligence and represents a concept or message. The ordinary person wouldn't see what it was at all. Or someone who was dyslexic might not be able to recognize symbols, even though they were highly significant. But I make nothing of those observations.

Sorry to keep butting in but I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made. Data being read ambiguously is the basis of a HYPOTHESIS . Having many different hypotheses are fine, but when it comes to science we have to choose the hypothesis that best can be formulated into a scientific THEORY. This is the important distinction when it comes to science.

Right. So if the science happens to point to the idea of a Creator, why should we, like Dawkins, refuse it? Only because we've already decided prejudicially that whatever leads us to the answer "God" is not permitted to be science. But there's nothing scientific itself about the decision to rule and answer out of science --if the data leads that way, which Dawkins admits it seems to.

In the final analysis the theory should be able to fit the observations and make predictions. If it doesn't then it is of no value in scientific terms.

Were that true, then it would indicate a limit of the scientific method, but nothing else. It certainly would not suggest that science was the only way things could be known. And most practical knowledge is not of a scientific sort. For example, most of us on a daily basis make perfectly rational but non-scientific judgments, and many of them have very high predictive value. When I leave my house in the morning, I do not "run a scientific trial" to see if I will be able to make it to work; I just do it. But it's a very sane thing for me to do, and I almost always arrive at work.

If the most likely hypothesis cannot be tested, fit observational evidence and make predictions then from a scientific point of view you must go with the least likely hypothesis ( if there is only a choice of two). Provided the least likely hypothesis can be turned into a theory that fits the observations and can make predictions. Within such a scenario science has no choice but to go with the hypothesis that can be turned into a theory./quote]
But this is not a test Theism fails. It can be theorized that there is a God, and if Theists are telling the truth, they think evidence can be adduced for it as well. What's the problem? You'll have to expand.

Immanuel Can wrote: Right. So if the science happens to point to the idea of a Creator, why should we, like Dawkins, refuse it? Only because we've already decided prejudicially that whatever leads us to the answer "God" is not permitted to be science. But there's nothing scientific itself about the decision to rule and answer out of science --if the data leads that way, which Dawkins admits it seems to.

Unfortunately that's just the way it is with science. Yes, unfortunately God is not permitted to be in science. It is for the reasons I have outlined. Unless, you can come up with a suitable scientific theory as opposed to a hypothesis. That is one that meet all the requirements of the scientific method.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Were that true, then it would indicate a limit of the scientific method, but nothing else. It certainly would not suggest that science was the only way things could be known. And most practical knowledge is not of a scientific sort. For example, most of us on a daily basis make perfectly rational but non-scientific judgments, and many of them have very high predictive value. When I leave my house in the morning, I do not "run a scientific trial" to see if I will be able to make it to work; I just do it. But it's a very sane thing for me to do, and I almost always arrive at work.

The short answer is that the scientific method has limits. In fact a large number of limits. For such activities you don't need a scientific trial and no scientific trial is required.

Immanuel Can wrote:
But this is not a test Theism fails. It can be theorized that there is a God, and if Theists are telling the truth, they think evidence can be adduced for it as well. What's the problem? You'll have to expand.

The only test Theism falls is the scientific test. By this I mean we cannot have a scientific theory of God that meets all the requirements of scientific methodology. I have outlined this a number of times in terms of "scientific" theory as opposed to "hypothesis".

Theism doesn't fail the ontological test, but the ontological test isn't science. As uwot points out ,when it comes to science we are not doing metaphysics. Different methodologies.

One thing that puzzles me when in comes to Theism. Why is there such a need to jump on the scientific bandwagon?

Immanuel Can wrote:Ah, but our bodies are *already* complex systems. If your objection were on point, it would suggest that the order of the universe is constructed out of an already-ordered-being, which, of course, is similar to what Theists would say: order comes from an order-causing God.

There is a hydrogen explosion 93 million miles away. It is 800 000 miles in diameter and although it is still piffling compared to the big bang, it is battering our planet with photons. The momentum from these photons causes chemical reactions; among the more remarkable is photosynthesis. In effect the energy spewed out by the sun restructures matter into forms that can be exploited by living organisms. It's along process, but while our bodies are complex systems, the theory of evolution claims that they didn't start that way. All the while the sun has been fusing hydrogen into helium, spitting out the left over energy from that transmutation; the amount of energy that has been transformed into living things on a thin layer of a small planet is negligible compared to the colossal quantities that have been pumped out into empty space as heat. Entropy is safe in the solar system.

Immanuel Can wrote:P.S. -- The nitpick: It's a minor point, but take, for example primitive cave-writing: some of it is so vague that only an archaeologist could recognize that it is the product of intelligence and represents a concept or message. The ordinary person wouldn't see what it was at all. Or someone who was dyslexic might not be able to recognize symbols, even though they were highly significant. But I make nothing of those observations.

Best not, those are things which are recognised as human artefacts. Is there anything that is not attributable to humans that looks like language?

Immanuel Can wrote:Oh, charming!

I was taking issue with uwot (and, admittedly, doing a bit of chuckling as well) on another thread because he had the temerity to state he had the "core meaning" of all religions in hand (including my own beliefs, I suppose). Rather than daring to answer there, he immediately pops up to be gratuitously contentious here.

And he thinks I won't ask again.

Okay, uwot: let's hear it...what's your "core meaning" to all religions. I'm dying to be enlightened. And now you've got a fresh audience for your claim.

For the record, I never claimed that I had the 'core meaning' to all the different religions, just that I believed there was a common core belief in all the different religions. Slight difference, but worth noting.

Granted.

But are you ever going to tell us what this "core meaning" of religions is? Or are you now saying your "belief" in it is simply gratuitous belief without any specific content --what Sartre called "bad faith"?

Look, I don't have to ride you on this or make you unhappy. You might not actually be a bad person, for all I know, since we have never met. I suspect you just made an incautious claim, one you're not able to redeem. I just happen to find it a very offensive and unwarranted claim, but you may not have intended such an offense at all. I'll grant you that. We needn't fight.

Yet it's pretty clear to me what your statement, taken literally, amounts to: it's an example of what I was talking about earlier in the other thread: a kindly-intended but badly incorrect claim, one that ends up being dismissive of all religious traditions.

You can't tell people what they believe; you can *ask* them. And if it turns out that they all agree on something, that will become evident without any jump to that conclusion prior to the evidence. And if they don't, that will also become apparent. But the facts, not our sanguine wishes, are what shows what's true about what they say. And to tell any tradition that their most fundamental commitments are indistinguishable from everyone else's is simply prejudiced -- or to use the liberal buzzwords, "hegemonic" and "colonial." It assumes that liberal interpreters are the master-interpreters of religious claims, and can say what they ultimately "mean." Not surprisingly, when this hegemonic control is allowed, all ideologies turn out to be clumsy confirmations of humanist wishes.

So at the end of the day, there's nothing liberal, kind or open-minded in the view that all religions and traditions are simply different shades of the same warm humanist pablum. That is a common Western liberal delusion, but not the less a delusion for being common and Western. And it's very dismissive and insulting.

Of course, if what I'm saying isn't true, then you can easily prove me wrong: just tell us the "core message," and if it turns out you're right, you've got me cold. Or you can revise your claim, if you prefer, modify your former position, and continue. It's up to you.

IC, rereading your last substantive post directed at me, I find myself itching to respond. I feel that there are plenty of ways in which we could extend both of our arguments, or at least I feel this very much on my own end. Nevertheless, I respect that now that Arising_uk and uwot have (re-)entered the thread, your efforts are already spread thin, and so I will refrain, hopefully saving you enough time to adequately address their points, and seeing that I have taken up more than enough of your time already in this thread.

In answer to your question: there's nothing really that Arising_uk has said that I feel I haven't already addressed in my first post to this thread. I have, though, followed your own responses with interest, and will continue to follow the discussion between the two of you in this thread, and, if I think it won't cause either of you too much extra effort to respond, and if I see the opportunity, then I might pop in a further word at some point. In the meantime, I want to try to do justice to James's last post.

James, there's a lot in that post that I think deserves acknowledgement at least, if not response, so I'll quote a few of your points and respond inline:

James Markham wrote:Harry, when I say I don't believe we was created by god, I think that's because I don't believe there is any element of us which isn't also god. In my mind we are all existent within god, as narrowed perspectives, where god is the whole perspective which encompasses and contains all others.

I've heard this view before, and it seems plausible enough to me. One question though: would you include evil as "also [G]od" and "existent within [G]od"? Because at this point in my understanding, I wouldn't (other than in the hypothetical scenario I canvassed earlier in this thread in which a [God-like] Source splits itself into a good-evil duality for the purpose of furthering its own evolution). I'd guess from what you say later in your post that you wouldn't either, but it can't hurt to ask explicitly.

James Markham wrote:But critically, I don't believe god created his own ability to perceive, so it follows that because we are parts of that perception which he isn't responsible for creating, our ability to perceive was not created by him either by virtue of the fact they are aspects of the same phenomena.

I'm partial to this view, James. There is a potential problem with it in that it leaves things unexplained, but nobody seems to have a complete explanation of existence anyway, so a problem like that should hardly disqualify this view. (The problem is that if God didn't create His own ability to perceive, then we are left at a loss as to where it came from - but then, if *the whole of* God is (as on the Christian view) "uncreated", then this *part of* God being "uncreated" hardly poses any bigger of a problem).

James Markham wrote:So if for a possible example, we take two facts, firstly that a consciousness awareness exists, and secondly that it's a permanent quality that is the basis for all or any reality. And if we now say that any contemplation of these two facts, is perception of what is actual, and fundamentally true, but that certain conceptual ideas that are implied by these facts, such as quantity and position, exist only conceptually, we could say that mathematics and geometry are part of a conceptual reality that is derived from actual reality, and closely related to that which is true, and so occur as a stable platform on which our perceived reality is built.

Perhaps you're right. The only qualm I'd have is that conceptual reality (mathematics in particular) is so incredibly rich and full of surprising links, relationships and synchronicities that it really smacks of design. I'd suggest then that at least part of what you call "actual reality", i.e. the 3D+time world, might well be designed. I don't think that consciousness alone entails quantity and position: pure consciousness, it seems to me, can exist independently of everything that we perceive through our senses.

James Markham wrote:On the matter of what we might term satan, we have the same opinion, I believe it's an idea that is for the most part ignored by the theist, and metaphysicians, but it seems obvious to me that if we have in god an epitome of all that is positive, then in satan we have the opposite.

Yes, then we do agree. I'm glad to find that.

James Markham wrote:As I've said, I believe the driving force behind both extremes is the correct interpretation of reality, and what is fundamentally correct. In the positive perspective of god, truth is correctly perceived and accepted as a governing principle, in the case of his opposite, truth is corrupted and allows for false hope concerning the realisation of his desires. What these desires are I can only speculate, but it seems to me, that if it was in fact the truth that at a fundamental level, existence is a permanent and singular phenomena, meaning that at some level it can be experienced as such, then this could be interpreted as either a positive fact, inducing a positive perspective, and a contented acceptance, or a negative fact inducing denial, rebellion and desire for oblivion.

Interesting. Would a fair interpretation of what you're saying be: "That which is evil is essentially suicidal, but because existence is permanent, suicide is impossible, and so evil ends up projecting its unresolvable suicidal tendencies into tendencies for destruction, pain and suffering (of 'the other')"?

Immanuel Can wrote:Granted.

But are you ever going to tell us what this "core meaning" of religions is? Or are you now saying your "belief" in it is simply gratuitous belief without any specific content --what Sartre called "bad faith"?

Of course, if what I'm saying isn't true, then you can easily prove me wrong: just tell us the "core message," and if it turns out you're right, you've got me cold. Or you can revise your claim, if you prefer, modify your former position, and continue. It's up to you.

IC i have studied a few religions and found what I believe is a common thread or 'core belief'.
I have read, and heard program by Joseph Campbell, and have no reason to believe that he is incorrect. Campbell states that all mythologies have common myths at their origins. I accept that religions grow out of mythology, so if mythologies had the same origins, then religions had the same origins and ought to contain the same original message.
From these two concepts I have extrapolated that all religions probably have the same 'core message'.
That 'core message can be expressed in different ways but simply put it is to love, or have compassion for your fellow man.
Very simple really but I have yet to find a religion that does not claim to have that message at it's core.

Harry, your first question, "does god encompass evil", is one I have changed sides on many times, but I think I now realise my confusion has been to do with formulating a decisive definition of the word god. Man has created many religions, and for a person who seeks to make sense of the world and it's inhabitants, it is necessary to have some awareness of these various interpretations and speculations, and unless, as an individual, we are happy to select a specific ideology, and proceed to culture our intellect to fit that system, we become forced by virtue of our reason to interpret the varied particulars in their relation as a whole. To me this requires a synthesis of science, nature, religion, psychology, sociology and any other body of knowledge that pertains to understanding reality.


So this is what I think I've attempted to do, and as a result, I've had no clear idea as to what the word god refers to, as the word has different connotations in the various religious doctrines within which it's found.

As a solution to this problem, I have now chosen to accept that when I use the word, I mean it to denote the personification of perfection, and in this context, there is no room for evil, or negative aspects. So all that is positive, consciously and emotionally, has god as it's source, and all that is negative has the devil as it's source.

So to me it makes little sense to suggest that something, or someone can be both the source or origin of malevolence, and also omnibenevolent, the two qualities cannot be united logically within a single perspective. So ultimately we have a choice, either we accept that god is both, or we chose to define the term god as meaning, a wholly positive personification. I personally have to choose the later, but this also means that god is not the sum of everything, and that if reality does have a fundamental level of unification, from within which all conscious events issue forth, then positive and negative perspectives have a common source.

This common source, as the producer of all reality, is what some people would define as god, but then they have to acknowledge that what they term as god, must be understood as the producer of what is negative as well as positive.

The next point you mention, concerning "what created gods consciousness", is one that seems to frustrate reason. To me the only solution is if we acknowledge, by virtue that we do indeed exist, that conscious awareness is possible, and also that previous to this state of existence there exists the potential for it to exist. Potential is not in itself an actual thing or event, so for example we can see that because we as individuals, exist now, that the potential for our existence must be a perpetual feature of metaphysical reality. It doesn't matter if the physical universe is finite, or that it began with a big bang, because knowing we exist now, means we also know the potential for our existence existed in all prior states of reality, and if there was a condition where nothing but potential existed, then the potential for us existed within it. So personally I think the potential for consciousness, can be understood in the same manner as we understand unconsciousness, a timeless void that retains the capability to produce the conscious event of validation. This state, or principle condition, is what I understand as the fundamental base, from which all potential events become actual conscious events.

In regards to mathematics, and it's apparent design, I think it's a case of reality being a conscious activity, the complexity of mathematical theory, is a development that evolves in time with our search for understanding, so although I believe it is god that creates that structured environment for us, I don't think it's necessary that it's by virtue of him that two plus two equals four. What I believe god does, is ensure that our reality is structured and understandable. So just like in a nursery we create an environment to protect young children from physical harm, long enough for them to perfect control and coordination over their bodies, god does the same for our mental development. So as an example, if we look at an idea such as the concept of physical things, on a deeply fundamental level it makes little sense, but god ensures our reality exists in such a way as to make an appearance of sense, while humanity develops a sufficient level of intellect to cope with the fact that at some level physical existence dissolves into potentials and probabilities.

So lastly, yes, your summary of my view of evil is correct, basically I believe that on a fundamental level, there exists a reason for negative behaviour, and that is all to do with the fact that ultimately, consciousness is a solitary eternity, and in the case of the devil, it's become a madness that turns on itself.

That 'core message can be expressed in different ways but simply put it is to love, or have compassion for your fellow man.
Very simple really but I have yet to find a religion that does not claim to have that message at it's core.

Well, let me help you there. Most of them do not say that.

For one obvious example, traditional rural Hinduism holds that there are "castes" into which people are born, and their "dharma" is to stay in those castes. Higher castes have no duty -- and in fact have a positive duty NOT to do so -- to help lower castes rise. Or take Nazi Occultism: it says the weak and corrupt races must die. Or take ancient Mayan religions, in which they routinely murdered prisoners as sacrifices in ritual fashion. Or take Santeria, which incorporates putting curses on other people. These are but a few of the may religions that do not teach "compassion" at all; and many others teach "compassion" only to friends, relatives or members of one's own sect, and outright cruelty to everyone else. And let's not even get started on Dialectical Materialism, the metaphysical belief behind Stalinism and Maoism.

You're reading back your own Western post-Christian liberalism into other people, and thinking they have the same view you have. That's probably kind-hearted and well-indended, but is also imperious and insulting to their beliefs. More importantly, it lulls you into indifference to whatever it is they actually teach. That might not just be unwise and untrue, but also unsafe for you as well.

Yet only one belief system goes well beyond these others, and says "Love your enemies." Now, perhaps that's compassion in its full expression.