There is hard scientific evidence for the existence of mirror neurons, and that they are active in infants before 12 months. And it's pretty solid that if your "empathy circuit" isn't working, you will manifest a psychological disorder.
It's also pretty clear that while a great deal about cognition can be socially influenced, I have never seen anyone claim that a basic human capacity like empathy is a social construction.
In contrast, what have you got? Nothing. Very impressive. :roll:
All very good and well, go back read what I wrote and try to impress someone other than yourself. You'll see my previous comment refutes that post and what you've doubled down on here.
I'm not saying that religion played or plays no role at all in the structure of societies
Well, I'm glad you're not saying that.
What I'm saying, and what is quite clear, is that empathy has a biological basis. The fact that some religions encourage this quality (and many do not) does not, in any way shape or form, exclude or refute the idea that empathy has a biological basis.
No, it isn't clear, what you have is evidence of biological reaction. Nothing has proven that Zzt...Zzt...impulses show anything other than being present when the idea of empathy is projected onto a 12 month old..
Making such a claim would be akin to suggesting that it is religion, and only religion, which establishes respect for one's parents. (Confucianism clearly shows this is not the case btw.)
Confucius manifest out of nothingness, eh? No indigenous religion spanning, oh a 1000 years from which Confuciasm and Taoism grew out of? Old Connie was the first to bring ethics up, that's your schtick? good to know...
I'd also point out that if you do not have the neurological capacity to empathize, no exposure to religion will produce it in you. For example, you can't cure a sociopath with a religious education.
Proof?
What nonsense is this? There are tons of contingencies to human history.
either you do not understand or you do not understand. The way the world is now, your life, as it is, in this moment, there is no other way it could have been. The rest, the contingencies, is illusion. Aptly put, the nonsense is yours.
No, actually, they aren't.
For example, moral principles in China were dominated for centuries by Confucianism, which is not a religion. Ethics had almost nothing to do with religion in Japan. Whole generation in the USSR were never taught about religion, and derived their ethics without them.
Explained above, completely ridiculous on japan. Rejection of, doesn't mean not influenced by and I'd question your view of using the USSR as a heady example of ethics without religion.
Western philosophers have largely abandoned religious principles as the basis for ethics about 200 years ago. Contractualism, consequentialism, pragmatism, no religious basis.
It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Francis Bacon
Obviously, an American who is an atheist is not going to teach his or her children ethics with a religious basis.
He could not help but to do otherwise..
And again: If you look at the work of Milton Friedman, arch-conservative and profound influence on Ronald Reagan's economic policies, absolutely none of his beliefs are based on religion. They're all based on his ideas about what does and does not work.
Who said these dinks were really conservative?
You may not like it, but the claim that "empathy is inherent" is a straight-up scientific claim, with scientific proof thereof. And nothing you've said actually refutes this claim
claim, yes, proof, I won't repeat myself on, just simply say NO, and I've actually demolished your claim while not even really getting in my daily exercise.
We're having two different conversations my man, and it doesn't seem your ready for the one I'm engaged in.
Now, which emoticon to emphasize my smug intellectual superiority should I use....hmmm
:roll: ?
or
:yawn:?
Either/Or
