Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[Sair]

If one doesn’t believe in the possibility of selfless love or cannot justify belief in selfless love one cannot be capable of selfless love unless one is inspired by the example of some one who believed in selfless love and demonstrated that selfless love is possible or by another source of inspiration.

The issue is how belief in selfless love originated and how it can be explained if we are animals.

Belief in selfless love seems to be, on reflection, somewhat contradictory. Even if we define love as the desire for the well-being of the loved one, the satisfaction of that desire is still something we experience for ourselves as a personal reward at some level.

It’s quite possible that the origins of altruism lie in the evolution of parental care - there are a number of animals who will actually endanger and even actively give up their own lives in order to protect their offspring from predators, for example. It might well be said that such animals act purely from instinct, but it could equally well be said that in certain circumstances, humans instinctively perceive what needs to be done and act without thought to any immediate consequences to themselves. Perhaps this is the only genuinely selfless action of which we are capable.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Belief in selfless love seems to be, on reflection, somewhat contradictory. Even if we define love as the desire for the well-being of the loved one, the satisfaction of that desire is still something we experience for ourselves as a personal reward at some level.

It’s quite possible that the origins of altruism lie in the evolution of parental care - there are a number of animals who will actually endanger and even actively give up their own lives in order to protect their offspring from predators, for example. It might well be said that such animals act purely from instinct, but it could equally well be said that in certain circumstances, humans instinctively perceive what needs to be done and act without thought to any immediate consequences to themselves. Perhaps this is the only genuinely selfless action of which we are capable.

I think you have made some good points!

When I act to do something good, there could be any number of reasons I do it, or at least that factor in. It is beyond human ability to tease out a specific motive and assign it as the primary causal one, or the greatest causal one, or whatever yardstick is the fashion. How do I know when there are several reasons to do good? Why ask why? Just do the good. That’s why I do good things. Who knows themselves better and can precisely name the exact motive(s) on which they acted in any given situation?

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Of course? As in goes without saying? It isn’t like we can do controlled experiments.

No, you’re right about that.

But it’s the logical conclusion, don’t you think?

Let’s make an analogy: let’s say there’s Belief System A which proclaims: “One tenet of our faith is that our Deity gives Believers the ability to see everything that’s blue down to the sub-atomic level…”

and then a Believer discovers a cure for cancer because he was able to see some sub-atomic particle in a blueberry…

would you then not conclude that this Belief System A was what provided him with the ability find a cure for cancer?

And as there are no other examples of non-Believers being able to see sub-atomic particles in anything that’s blue…

doesn’t reason dictate that this is an essential characteristic of Belief System A?

 

[PRmerger]

It does open the possibility that he felt no particular love for the man whose place he took, though. Unless you have privileged access to his state of mind at the time, you are left to making assumptions along with the rest of us.

I suppose it’s* possible* that a Christian, whose belief system is based on an ethos of LOVE, who did something that objectively appears to be LOVING, who proclaimed that he was following in the footsteps of his LOVING Master, who wrote of the flowering of the LOVE of God the Father and the Son, whose life in minutiae was examined by third parties to determine whether LOVE existed in his heart and was later proclaimed a saint in heaven…

didn’t, ummm, love…

but that would take some really, really hard-core, blinded-by-ideology fanatic to declare that.

And if she did conclude that St. Maximilian Kolbe had the “possibility” of not loving Franciszek Gajowniczek, then…

if she’s consistent…

she’s going to have to apply this "well, it’s definitely possible" paradigm…

to the existence of God.

She can’t have it both ways.

She can’t proclaim God doesn’t exist while also entertaining the possibility that some ludicrous, anti-reasonable possibility also exists.

 

[PRmerger]

If you are talking about only Christians having the ability to make this kind of sacrifice, then firstly, I think you are mistaken. As has been shown in previous posts, believers and unbelievers of all stripes have taken part in humanitarian work at real and present danger to their lives -

Of course.

No one is saying atheists can’t be really nice people.

But no atheist has even come close to the caliber of a Maximilian Kolbe.

And I still haven’t seen any evidence–AT ALL–that these people that have been cited on this thread as examples of atheistic humanitarians are, well, atheist.

You need to provide some evidence that they were atheist, Sair.

And, of course, it must be first-person accounts because you have proclaimed eye-witness accounts to be “notoriously unreliable.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But it’s the logical conclusion, don’t you think?

Seriously, I’m trying not to; it seems to be messing me up.

Let’s make an analogy: let’s say there’s Belief System A which proclaims: “One tenet of our faith is that our Deity gives Believers the ability to see everything that’s blue down to the sub-atomic level…”

and then a Believer discovers a cure for cancer because he was able to see some sub-atomic particle in a blueberry…

Ummm… ok.

would you then not conclude that this Belief System A was what provided him with the ability find a cure for cancer?

NEI … with just this information there is no particular reason to even suspect causality – that the belief brought about the ability to see. There was a person who “happened to be” members of two sets: the set of believers, and the set of those who can see.

And as there are no other examples of non-Believers being able to see sub-atomic particles in anything that’s blue…

doesn’t reason dictate that this is an essential characteristic of Belief System A?

No. I’d have to do a Poisson distribution analysis or some such to give you the odds – and I’m seriously rust at that – but the odds of causality are very low based on only one sample that can see.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that at the pivotal moment, when it came time to make the choice between avoiding the extremity of commitment to the cause and going the distance, the only thing that would get you over the line is belief in Christ?

No. I don’t believe I’ve ever proclaimed that only Christians can be “extremely committed” to a cause.

sigh

No non-Christian has even been able to give his life in sacrificial love ala Maximilian Kolbe.

[SIGN1]I will consider this possibility of a non-Christian doing this, once evidence is provided.[/SIGN1]

So far, none has been provided.

Thus,** like you,** I fall back upon this position: I do not believe this entity exists as there is no evidence for his existence.

You cannot object to my position, without objecting to your position.

 

[PRmerger]

Secondly, what exactly does Christian faith add to the mix that gives a person the ability to die willingly, either for the sake of another person or for a cause?

deep cleansing breath

It is not my position that only a Christian can die willingly for the sake of another person or a cause.

It is my position that only a Christian (unless evidence can be provided for the contrary, which, thus far, it has NOT) can give his life in an act of sacrificial love ala Maximilian Kolbe.

 

[PRmerger]

No. I’d have to do a Poisson distribution analysis or some such to give you the odds – and I’m seriously rust at that – but the odds of causality are very low based on only one sample that can see.

Alan

Sorry. I don’t even know what that is. And I’m not in the mood to google it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

No non-Christian has even been able to give his life in sacrificial love ala Maximilian Kolbe.

[SIGN1]I will consider this possibility of a non-Christian doing this, once evidence is provided.[/SIGN1]

So far, none has been provided.

If you promise to consider the possibility of something based on future evidence, then you have already considered the possibility of it.

If it were impossible you wouldn’t actually consider it contingent upon evidence because your mind would be made up that it is inherently impossible and therefore there is no evidence possible. Either that or it’s a wild goose chase for evidence, none of which will be sufficient.

Right?

But if Kolbe is defined as perfection, wouldn’t all others fail in comparison – Christian or not?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sorry. I don’t even know what that is. And I’m not in the mood to google it.

You don’t want to. It’s a statistics thing.

Alan

 

[atheistgirl]

Unless you have privileged access to his state of mind at the time, you are left to making assumptions along with the rest of us.

Exactly.

At that precise moment in time when the decision to act took place. And no one has that acess. He left no writing behind stating why he did what he did. In fact, the reported words the man used could just as easily indicate a man who has lost all hope and just wanted things to end.

‘‘I am old’’ (he was in his forties)

‘‘This man has a family, and I am alone’’

Those words could just as easily be spoken by a man who was severely depressed (not at all surprizing considering what he was living through).

I don’t know, and neither does any one else.

It’s interesting though that those who would belittle the sacrifices of non religious/atheists/secular humanists, have no problem making all sorts to assumptions for the actions of those of their faith in their favor.

But this thread keeps being brought to one person, rather than opening up into a wider philosophical discussion.

I’ve now had enough of what has effectively been reduced to repetitive gloating on this thread, as it’s quite repulsive, and doesn’t strike me as being particulary Christian (my hero who gave his life is better than your heroine who gave her life ) and am thus unsubscribing.

I’ve said pretty much all I wanted to say anyhow. It’s a great pity the thread has got bogged down in the my hero’s love is better than your hero’s love agenda, rather than moving on with what otherewise would have been a very intelligent and interesting discussion - although some have indeed tried heroically to do just this.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Belief in selfless love seems to be, on reflection, somewhat contradictory. Even if we define love as the desire for the well-being of the loved one, the satisfaction of that desire is still something we experience for ourselves as a personal reward at some level.

Only a cynic believes the thought of a personal reward is uppermost - or even present - in a person’s mind when (s)he chooses to die out of selfless love for others.
But such a view is an inevitable conclusion for a hedonist who interprets morality in terms of the pain-pleasure principle. No wonder selfless love is completely out of the question for a person who has consistently and resolutely rejected Christianity…

It’s quite possible that the origins of altruism lie in the evolution of parental care - there are a number of animals who will actually endanger and even actively give up their own lives in order to protect their offspring from predators, for example. It might well be said that such animals act purely from instinct, but it could equally well be said that in certain circumstances, humans instinctively perceive what needs to be done and act without thought to any immediate consequences to themselves. Perhaps this is the only genuinely selfless action of which we are capable.

It is a typical materialist’s ploy to discredit all noble behavior by attributing it “purely” to instinct or other physical causes. It is hardly surprising that consistent materialists are incapable of genuinely selfless love given that they don’t believe it is possible unless they act thoughtlessly! Fortunately the vast majority are not consistent - unlike the small minority who follow the person=ape theory to its logical conclusion…

 

[PRmerger]

If you promise to consider the possibility of something based on future evidence, then you have already considered the possibility of it.

Sure.

If it were impossible you wouldn’t actually consider it contingent upon evidence because your mind would be made up that it is inherently impossible and therefore there is no evidence possible

Right.

Either that or it’s a wild goose chase for evidence, none of which will be sufficient

This is interesting. It segues quite nicely with my greater point, the entire reason I love, love, love to bring up this question about the atheistic equivalent of Kolbe with atheists:

There is, it appears, no evidence that will be sufficient to convince a certain type of atheist of God’s existence. Why? Because his mind is sufficiently closed to such evidence.

So I am willing to take either position. As long as the atheist is willing to concede similarly as well.

That is:

Position A for the PAK doubter: the PAK may exist and I will examine the evidence for his existence.

Position A for the atheist: God may exist and I will examine the evidence for his existence.

Position B for the PAK doubter: there is no PAK and there is no evidence that would be sufficient to convince me.

Position B for the atheist: there is no God and there is no evidence that would be sufficient to convince me.

If I am allowed Position A, then the atheist must adhere to Position A.

If I am allowed Position B, then the atheist must adhere to Position B.

It appears that atheists on this thread are accusing me of Position B, while adhering to Position B themselves.

I am simply calling them on this, and that rattles their atheistic minds, for, at their heart, they are reasonable and see the inconsistency in their position.

But if Kolbe is defined as perfection, wouldn’t all others fail in comparison – Christian or not?

Alan

Actually, Christ’s sacrifice is what is defined as perfection.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Actually, Christ’s sacrifice is what is defined as perfection.

OK, now it’s making sense. Since Jesus is the standard, and all others fall short, then the whole thing is quantitative, not qualitative.

In other words, it’s not about whether somebody “is like” a PAK or whatever. It’s about whether somebody is “sufficiently close to.”

Now of course we have to define “close.” What is the measure? How close is “sufficiently” close? What if he believes in God but has some other flawed thinking? How do you account for environmental factors without a controlled experiment.

Therefore it is absolutely inconclusive whether anybody can, has, or will be “better” on any sort of absolute scale than Kolbe we can measure or calculate, because it’s all about how we define the terms.

You can only win the argument by setting the reference frame. And since we’re arguing facts and letting reference frames flop all over the place, I’m afraid we are in it for the long haul.
:yawn:

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

OK, now it’s making sense. Since Jesus is the standard, and all others fall short, then the whole thing is quantitative, not qualitative.

In other words, it’s not about whether somebody “is like” a PAK or whatever. It’s about whether somebody is “sufficiently close to.”

Now of course we have to define “close.” What is the measure? How close is “sufficiently” close? What if he believes in God but has some other flawed thinking? How do you account for environmental factors without a controlled experiment.

Therefore it is absolutely inconclusive whether anybody can, has, or will be “better” on any sort of absolute scale than Kolbe we can measure or calculate, because it’s all about how we define the terms.

You can only win the argument by setting the reference frame. And since we’re arguing facts and letting reference frames flop all over the place, I’m afraid we are in it for the long haul.
:yawn:

Alan

I think some of the problem here may be that atheists are not quite comfortable with making distinctions that are qualitative as well as quantitative.

But Catholics are very comfortable with this.

At least, we are if we are familiar with the distinction between latria, dulia and hyperdulia.

I have had many, many discussions with Protestants who object to our veneration of Mary, because they cannot see the distinction between what we do when we pray to Mary, vs the saints vs prayer to God.

So I am quite comfortable with distinctions in quality as well as quantity.

Have you ever had to provide apologia to non-Catholics regarding your Catholic belief in the veneration of Mary vs what you do when you pray to God, Alan?

If so, then perhaps you will be able to apply this to the distinction between what nice atheists do vs what St. Maximilian Kolbe did.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Have you ever had to provide apologia to non-Catholics regarding your Catholic belief in the veneration of Mary vs what you do when you pray to God, Alan?

I’ve talked to non-Catholics about Mary, if that’s what you mean. I don’t necessarily fancy myself an apologist, though, so I say what I say and they can accept it or not.

If so, then perhaps you will be able to apply this to the distinction between what nice atheists do vs what St. Maximilian Kolbe did.

I’ve got my best abstraction scarf and thinking cap on, and I’m still lost.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve got my best abstraction scarf and thinking cap on, and I’m still lost.

About what, specifically?

 

[Sair]

deep cleansing breath

It is not my position that only a Christian can die willingly for the sake of another person or a cause.

It is my position that only a Christian (unless evidence can be provided for the contrary, which, thus far, it has NOT) can give his life in an act of sacrificial love ala Maximilian Kolbe.

Now we seem to be getting somewhere. Your claim is that no matter whether a person willingly dies for a cause or for the sake of another person, it’s only an act of sacrificial love if it’s performed by a Christian. Right?

The exact same behaviour, framed in a different belief system.

I am quite happy with the claim that an atheist or a believer in a non-Christian religion would not consider their actions in light of the theology of Christ’s sacrifice. That much can be taken as given. That is not, however, the same as the insistence that they cannot behave in such a way as to give their lives for a purpose. What we are talking about here, then, is beliefs affecting thought processes and the interpretation of actions, not the actions themselves.

 

[PRmerger]

Now we seem to be getting somewhere. Your claim is that no matter whether a person willingly dies for a cause or for the sake of another person, it’s only an act of sacrificial love if it’s performed by a Christian. Right?

NO.

Please re-read this entire thread, Sair, so you can get this right.