Is compassion alone enough? Does the need for compassion necessitate religious belief? Is instilling compassion the primary function of religious belief? And do ‘believers’ in fact demonstrate compassion to an adequate extent?
This is the question of how religiosity and compassion relate to each other, parse it how you like. And the question hovers over many a discussion about belief like an impatient spouse at an awkward dinner party. We confront a line of reasoning that appears to go like this:
We should not ask too many questions. A philosophical discussion about the existence of God, for instance, is well and good. Yet, when it comes down to it, questioning religious belief undermines religious authority. This is undesirable. – Why? Because compassion, being as it is so vital to the world today, is a sufficient reason to ‘believe’.
This makes a psychological rather than a ‘factual’ argument. Fascinating! It seems as if the truth itself is less important than believing that something is true – because of how it affects people’s behavior. In this case it’s believed that religious beliefs, on the whole, do instill compassion.
Do they? Speaking in general terms, do religious beliefs instill compassion in people? On one hand, yes; sure they do. There is a strong case to be made that compassion is indeed at the core of all religious teaching. But that isn’t always apparent when different religions and value systems come into conflict.
So what gives? Do ‘believers’ not in fact demonstrate compassion to an adequate extent? Is instilling compassion perhaps not the primary function of religious belief? Or is compassion alone not enough to carry us through the vagaries of human behavior, social change and geo-political conflict?
Our core premise…
In later articles we will explore the function and adequacy of religious belief in greater depth. Here the primary question is the one we started with. Is compassion enough? Is it enough to guide our behavior, address social or political challenges and build a better world?
No. Our core premise is that it is not! Compassion is essential, without doubt. It just isn’t enough. Of equal importance are empathy and critical thinking. They are three legs of one indispensable stool. – But this calls for some definition of terms. In particular, the distinction between empathy and compassion should be clear.
Empathy is our ability to put ourselves in other people’s shoes. It is to achieve a high level of insight into other people’s perspectives, their values, fears and ambitions. It has obvious social value and enables collaboration with others. Even further, empathy enriches our lives by broadening our interpersonal perspectives.
By contrast, compassion is active. It is working to avoid, eliminate, or at least mitigate, suffering of any kind. If we are indeed compassionate, we aim not just to do no harm but to take action to improve existing conditions. And it isn’t selfless by definition. We can be compassionate toward others or toward ourselves.
Critical thinking, however, is our aptitude for clear headed, effective decision making. It differs from raw intelligence in bringing discipline to our thinking about ideas and problems. A critical thought process exposes biases and prejudices. It examines the relevance of information in formulating our views of things. It also compels us to examine the consequences of our decisions and actions.
Empathy, Compassion, Critical Thinking…
Empathy is essential. Compassion is essential. And critical thinking is essential. We need all three! Each is handicapped by the absence or underdevelopment of the other. Critical Thinking and Empathy, without Compassion, are mere theory. Empathy and Compassion, without Critical Thinking, are pure folly! – A stark example of this might be the following:
Suppose there is a church mission to Africa. The mission’s aim is to battle the AIDS epidemic. Presumably this mission is driven by great compassion for people’s suffering. Now let us suppose that the church sponsoring this mission teaches that contraception is a sin, as it encourages promiscuity. The strategy for the mission then becomes preaching sexual abstinence. What follows from that?
Preaching sexual abstinence is not unreasonable in itself. But are we being empathetic if we insist on it as a moral imperative? And if educating men and women on the use of contraception is off the table – are we applying critical thinking to the problem?
When a strategy does not achieve the desired results, then the compassionate efforts of the mission are in vain. – That is assuming the objective is a dramatic reduction in cases of AIDS. Or is that secondary to pushing a moralistic agenda? – If you do want to relieve suffering then you must be prepared to apply critical thinking and be flexible about what works and what does not. And part of that equation must be putting yourself in the other guy’s shoes. Empathy, rather than patronizing judgement, is vital to sustaining smart, positive change. Compassion alone is not enough.
The question now becomes:
Is religious belief compatible with real empathy and active critical thinking?
What do you think? Let us know!
Please see the Table-13 Code of Conduct before leaving a reply.
All comments are moderated.
