On Remorse

[Christian]

Before anyone continues, please read the warning:

Warning:

1. This is an intellectual *assault* on atheist's morality, if you feel you cannot answer objectively without feeling personally insulted, please do not engage in this discussion.

2. The discussion is strictly on intellectual grounds (logical conclusions or philosophical implications), but do to the identification of the atheist's position, it can be perceived as a personal attack. It is not.

3. I will accept an intellectual attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me.

I have placed the warning above specifically so that no one accusses me of setting them up.

ON REMORSE


Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?

Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?

Let's get started

 

[c4ts]

Before anyone continues, please read the warning:

Warning:

1. This is an intellectual *assault* on atheist's morality, if you feel you cannot answer objectively without feeling personally insulted, please do not engage in this discussion.

2. The discussion is strictly on intellectual grounds (logical conclusions or philosophical implications), but do to the identification of the atheist's position, it can be perceived as a personal attack. It is not.

3. I will accept an intellectual attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me.

I have placed the warning above specifically so that no one accusses me of setting them up.

ON REMORSE


Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?

Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?

Let's get started

OK, first of all you must explain what remorse has to do with specifically atheism, because everybody feels remorse for doing something wrong (one they understand what they did was wrong), atheist or otherwise. I don't see any attacks here, just an appeal to emotion. Why would the feelings of an atheist differ from those of another human being? When you prick them, do they not bleed?

 

[Uncertainty]

I guess this is my first post. I hope I don't waste too much time on these threads...

I think I feel remorse because of basic empathy. If I do something to make someone else feel bad, I tend to feel bad. Much like laughter is contagious, I think other things are too.

I don't fear punishment for my past actions, but I would like to think of myself as a person who adds to the positive aspects of the world, not the negative aspects.

I suppose I should think of a witty signature now.

 

[Mercutio]

Yeah, what c4ts said. I'm an atheist, and I feel remorse virtually any time I have hurt someone--even when they deserve it. It could be argued that an atheist has more reason to feel remorse. After all, to the extent that I have hurt someone, I have damaged the only life they get. No eternity for them to lord it over me, for them to get their reward and me my punishment. Nope, just this one, and here I go and hurt them. Life is precious--what is rarer than something you only get one of?

If, perhaps, you are implying that we should only feel remorse if we are expecting punishment (like a dog that got into the garbage--sorry, that just happened here today), well, I think Kohlberg (Moral development theorist) would easily see that most of us (adults, not merely atheists) are beyond such simplistic reasoning. If I have wronged somebody (by my rules, not god's), I feel remorse. And it has happened, despite my best attempts to the contrary.

 

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
OK, first of all you must explain what remorse has to do with specifically atheism, because everybody feels remorse for doing something wrong (one they understand what they did was wrong), atheist or otherwise.

Excellent point. Everyone feels remorse, yes. But this is my question. Why would an atheist feel it? I see no intellectual reason why he or she should.

What is the conection here between atheism and remorse? Well, remorse is based on passed actions. There is nothing an atheist can do about the past, absolutely nothing. Why would there be a reason for remorse? Why feel bad about something you can't do anything about?

I don't see any attacks here, just an appeal to emotion.

Just stick around.

Why would the feelings of an atheist differ from those of another human being?

Based on an intellectual understanding of the situation. Atheists can come to a very simple logical conclusion: If there is nothing I can about it, why feel remorse? Let me just skip the remorse and not repeat the mistake again.

When you prick them, do they not bleed?

 

[c4ts]

Excellent point. Everyone feels remorse, yes. But this is my question. Why would an atheist feel it? I see no intellectual reason why he or she should.

"Empathy" has been suggested twice. Whether or not this reason is intellectual is something else. I say it is, because the the human intellect seeks discovery of itself, so you identify with others in searching for it. Remorse, being caused by empathy, is the inevitable consequence of the human intellect.

What is the conection here between atheism and remorse? Well, remorse is based on passed actions. There is nothing an atheist can do about the past, absolutely nothing. Why would there be a reason for remorse? Why feel bad about something you can't do anything about?

Again, these questions do not apply to atheists in particular, but to the overall human condition (assuming humans can't travel back and forth through time and change the past). Again, empathy seems like a suitable explanation for the reason.

Based on an intellectual understanding of the situation. Atheists can come to a very simple logical conclusion: If there is nothing I can about it, why feel remorse? Let me just skip the remorse and not repeat the mistake again.

Based on the actual situation, some very nice evidence has already been offered. Hopefully, a better intellectual understanding of it will follow. But, from what I can tell, remorse is what causes a person to avoid making the same mistake twice, so you should not be able to skip it and move on. It is part of the process of learning from one's mistakes.

 

[Mercutio]

If you are serious about wanting a real answer, look in a social cognition book.

quote:"Excellent point. Everyone feels remorse, yes. But this is my question. Why would an atheist feel it? I see no intellectual reason why he or she should.

What is the conection here between atheism and remorse? Well, remorse is based on passed actions. There is nothing an atheist can do about the past, absolutely nothing. Why would there be a reason for remorse? Why feel bad about something you can't do anything about?"

The heuristics by which we make decisions (e.g., confirmation bias) have arguably arisen from millions of years of evolution. That atheists think using these heuristics simply verifies that we are human. The "intellectual reasons" have little bearing--it's the same as with food: no matter how much we know it is not good for us, our biology loves ice cream.

 

[Christian]

Mercutio wrote:
Yeah, what c4ts said. I'm an atheist, and I feel remorse virtually any time I have hurt someone--even when they deserve it. It could be argued that an atheist has more reason to feel remorse. After all, to the extent that I have hurt someone, I have damaged the only life they get. No eternity for them to lord it over me, for them to get their reward and me my punishment. Nope, just this one, and here I go and hurt them. Life is precious--what is rarer than something you only get one of?

How can you argue more? According to you, the damage is irreparable. There is nothing you can do to take it back. It it totally useless to feel remorse. From your perspective, I would the best course of action is to skip the remorse (waste of time) and concentrate on analizing how not to repeat the mistake. Yes, an appology is in order, but not remorse.

So, it is useless to feel remorse. Why feel it? I see no intellectual reason why you should feel it. Unless feeling it makes *you* feel better.

 

[c4ts]

Mercutio wrote:
Yeah, what c4ts said. I'm an atheist, and I feel remorse virtually any time I have hurt someone--even when they deserve it. It could be argued that an atheist has more reason to feel remorse. After all, to the extent that I have hurt someone, I have damaged the only life they get. No eternity for them to lord it over me, for them to get their reward and me my punishment. Nope, just this one, and here I go and hurt them. Life is precious--what is rarer than something you only get one of?

How can you argue more? According to you, the damage is irreparable. There is nothing you can do to take it back. It it totally useless to feel remorse. From your perspective, I would the best course of action is to skip the remorse (waste of time) and concentrate on analizing how not to repeat the mistake. Yes, an appology is in order, but not remorse.

Uhh... this applies to you as well. Unless you can go back and change time, or claim to feel no remorse for your misdeeds, your position is no different. I pointed out that remorse is an inevitable consequence of the human intellect, so unless you would like to refute me on that point, analyzing the mistake will trigger the emotional response of remorse. If it doesn't, either the analysis wasn't complete, or you don't recognize it as a mistake.

So, it is useless to feel remorse. Why feel it? I see no intellectual reason why you should feel it. Unless feeling it makes *you* feel better.

Your conclusion needs more support. Explain why it is useless.

 

[Mercutio]

(just as an aside, I have always wondered why it is always assumed by non-atheists that atheists "must" act in particular [usually non-ethical] ways. I have never seen an atheist promote this view. BTW, I do not mean that that is what this thread is doing, christian--unless you prove me wrong) ( I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...)

 

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
"Empathy" has been suggested twice. Whether or not this reason is intellectual is something else. I say it is, because the the human intellect seeks discovery of itself, so you identify with others in searching for it. Remorse, being caused by empathy, is the inevitable consequence of the human intellect.

Let me first try to understand your response before addressing it. To you, it is a intellectual progression. First, you empathize. This feeling causes you to feel bad about what you did and that enables you to correct accordingly. Is this what you are saying? Remorse is part of an necessary intellectual process?

Again, these questions do not apply to atheists in particular, but to the overall human condition (assuming humans can't travel back and forth through time and change the past).

Yes, of course. I am making the question to atheists, so in this case it is the atheist's response that I want.

Based on the actual situation, some very nice evidence has already been offered. Hopefully, a better intellectual understanding of it will follow. But, from what I can tell, remorse is what causes a person to avoid making the same mistake twice, so you should not be able to skip it and move on. It is part of the process of learning from one's mistakes.

And from this response, I think I got it right. You are saying it is a necessary intellectual process. As I said, before responding, I want to be sure this is what you mean.


Mercutio wrote:
If you are serious about wanting a real answer, look in a social cognition book.

This is not where I'm coming from. Remember, to me, it is an intellectual attack on the thought process in atheism. Morality specifically.

The heuristics by which we make decisions (e.g., confirmation bias) have arguably arisen from millions of years of evolution. That atheists think using these heuristics simply verifies that we are human. The "intellectual reasons" have little bearing--it's the same as with food: no matter how much we know it is not good for us, our biology loves ice cream.

So, to be absolutely clear about this. You agree that remorse is useless, irrelevant but it is ingrained in the human brain? It can't be bypassed due to our genetic makeup?

 

[Fade]

This is the only post I am going to put into this thread. I will not respond in any way, other than this:

Religion did not originate morality and ethics. In fact, it was partly the other way around. A single set of ethical guidelines is one of the most common reasons why religions evolved in the first place.

What Christian has put forth amounts to immense intellectual laziness.

 

[evildave]

Remorse is as much an emotion as love or hate.

Would Christian next argue that atheists don't love? Gods are supposed to be the fountain from which that springs, and obviously atheism denies gods. I know there are some who would for some reason argue that atheists only hate, and here we have yet another emotion being set aside, labeling us as pitiless monsters.

How far until Christian really starts becomming indistinguishable from Jedi Knight?

A better way to ask the question might be:

Can religious people acting in the name of their god(s) feel remorse for their actions?

Obviously not. How could they feel sorry for what their own God told them to do? Wouldn't feeling remorse be second-guessing God's authority over what is best?

As an example, why should a suicide bomber feel remorse? He's (or she's) going to get God's ultimate reward for his/her sacrifice. And (BIG BONUS) won't be around to feel remorse after the fact. Convenient, that.

As for remorse, I personally feel it is far better to project ahead to what would cause me to feel remorse, and not behave in that manner or do those things. But that requires a bit of self examination and questioning of my own personal motives. Something some people apparently don't have the introspective skills to do.

Do I feel any remorse for the wording of this post? Funny, none at all.

I wonder if Christian sees his promotion of bigotry as "God's work"?

 

[c4ts]

c4ts wrote:
"Empathy" has been suggested twice. Whether or not this reason is intellectual is something else. I say it is, because the the human intellect seeks discovery of itself, so you identify with others in searching for it. Remorse, being caused by empathy, is the inevitable consequence of the human intellect.

Let me first try to understand your response before addressing it. To you, it is a intellectual progression. First, you empathize. This feeling causes you to feel bad about what you did and that enables you to correct accordingly. Is this what you are saying? Remorse is part of an necessary intellectual process?

No, that is not what I am saying. Effect does not come before the cause. First you contemplate, and the result is automatic. The response is the emotional one Mercutio describes, I just gave a slightly more direct cause than heuristics, which is that the contemplation of a mistake will trigger remorse, and I said that the empathy for the person who had been wronged by the misdeed (that which triggers sadness, which we call "remorse"), or any kind of empathy whatsoever, was the result of the human intellect's search for itself in things other than itself. The consequences of an action are not part of that action, therefore their necessity does not pertain to the action itself. The act of contemplation does not need to be caused by remorse, nor must it lead to it, but it sometimes happens anyway. Remorse is not a component of the human intellect, so it can't be necessary for it. No more than urine is necessary for drinking.

Yes, of course. I am making the question to atheists, so in this case it is the atheist's response that I want.

Well, unless the response you are looking for is "man needs Jesus to forgive him," you're likely to get the same response from a theist (although a Christian in particular might add that part about Jesus).

And from this response, I think I got it right. You are saying it is a necessary intellectual process. As I said, before responding, I want to be sure this is what you mean.

I only said it was necessary to learn from one's mistakes, because it is one of the means by which we detect our own error. After all, you cannot learn from a mistake if you did not know it was a mistake in the first place. I never said it was a necessary step in the intellectual process itself.

 

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
No, that is not what I am saying. Effect does not come before the cause. First you contemplate, and the result is automatic. The response is the emotional one Mercutio describes, I just gave a slightly more direct cause than heuristics, which is that the contemplation of a mistake will trigger remorse...

Ok, once a person contemplates the mistake it will trigger remorse.

I should have done this before:
the definition of remorse I'm using is:

Webster's
a deep, torturing sense of guilt felt over a wrong that one has done

and I said that the empathy for the person who had been wronged by the misdeed (that which triggers sadness, which we call "remorse"), or any kind of empathy whatsoever, was the result of the human intellect's search for itself in things other than itself.

Ok, the only way to feel emphathy is to have put ourselves in other's shoes, fine.

The consequences of an action are not part of that action, therefore their necessity does not pertain to the action itself. The act of contemplation does not need to be caused by remorse, nor must it lead to it, but it sometimes happens anyway. Remorse is not a component of the human intellect, so it can't be necessary for it. No more than urine is necessary for drinking.

So you are saying that remorse is not a necessary effect of the comtemplation.

So, again. This is my question/point. When someone can intellectually understand that implication of his or her actions, has comtemplated it and empathizes. Why not intellectual say to him or herself "Hey, there is no need for me to beat myself about it, or feel guilty, it doesn't serve any purpose. Why not I just skip the remorse and do what I have to do."

Well, unless the response you are looking for is "man needs Jesus to forgive him," you're likely to get the same response from a theist (although a Christian in particular might add that part about Jesus).

This is an interesting point. I think you are right that a a theist who believes the deity plays absolutely no active role would answer the same way. But, everyone else would have a different response (would have another response available).

I only said it was necessary to learn from one's mistakes, because it is one of the means by which we detect our own error. After all, you cannot learn from a mistake if you did not know it was a mistake in the first place.

Wouldn't you agree that the only necessary component to learn anything is intellect? Feelings are not necessary for knowledge (unless, of course, we are learning about feelings). We can detect our error purely on intellectual grounds.

I never said it was a necessary step in the intellectual process itself.

Got it. Bad phrasing on my part.

 

[c4ts]

So, again. This is my question/point. When someone can intellectually understand that implication of his or her actions, has comtemplated it and empathizes. Why not intellectual say to him or herself "Hey, there is no need for me to beat myself about it, or feel guilty, it doesn't serve any purpose. Why not I just skip the remorse and do what I have to do."

Didn't I say remorse was inevitable? You can't skip it unless you refuse to acknowledge a mistake. While there truly is no need to feel too much remorse, you cannot assume the only possible solution is to somehow skip it. Not only is this irrational, it defeats the purpose of learning from your mistakes to prevent addtional remorse. If someone appears to make a mistake and does not seem to be affected by remorse, yet are fully aware of what they have done, it is possible they are not making a mistake after all.

 

[c4ts]

What Christian has put forth amounts to immense intellectual laziness.

Did you miss out on Muscleman or something? Compared to MM, it's genius! At least Christian's trying to think. I don't know what he's getting at, but I think I can guess that it is something that amounts to a dogmatic account of "atheism bad, religion good." I won't know unless he gets there, but if he does, he'll get a bunch of people going "no, religion bad." I'm hoping he might actually read what they have to say instead of assuming that it's all dogma as well. Would it be too much to ask for more than a Whodini out of this guy?

 

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
Didn't I say remorse was inevitable? You can't skip it unless you refuse to acknowledge a mistake, whether you want to or not.

Ok, I understand what you are saying. But, why is it inevitable? I can acknowledge a mistake and not feel remorse. It is not necessary to feel remorse.

Suppose I chose the wrong type of deodorant that causes a rash. I don't need to feel remorse to clearly acknowledge the mistake. I only need to feel the effect.

This isn't any different from forgetting to buy a present for my wife on her birthday. Then, after some analysis, understanding that was wrong and correcting the mistake.

Why do I need remorse? Why is it necessary? If it is not necessary for countless learning curve situations, why is it necessary when other humans are involved?

While there truly is no need to feel too much remorse, you cannot assume the only possible solution is to somehow skip it.

I not saying it is the only possible solution. I'm stating that it totally unnecessary. Sure, if you want to feel, fine, but it doens't bring anything positive to the equation.

A person that corrects the mistake and apologizes (without feeling any remorse whatsoever) is exactly at the same place that a person that did. And he or she was more efficient intellectually and emotionally.

Not only is this irrational, it defeats the purpose of learning from your mistakes to prevent addtional remorse.

Explain why it is irrational. Are you saying no one can learn without remorse? Why not. Clearly remorse is not necessary for learning anything. And, actually, feeling about doing something. (have remorse) is no garantee that one has learned anything. Most criminals, after being caught, feel tons of remorse. Yet, most become repeat offenders.

 

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
Did you miss out on Muscleman or something? Compared to MM, it's genius! At least Christian's trying to think. I don't know what he's getting at, but I think I can guess that it is something that amounts to a dogmatic account of "atheism bad, religion good."

It is not my intention to keep anybody guessing. My intention is clear, the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.

I want to address these inconsistencies via the logical progressions. This says nothing about the morality of the individual who are atheists, only about the inconsistencies of atheism and morality.

BTW, if these are found, that does not mean religion good, obviously. It would be clear false dichotomy. The characteristics of atheism says nothing about the characteristics of religion other than atheists don't have a religion.

 

[c4ts]

c4ts wrote:
Did you miss out on Muscleman or something? Compared to MM, it's genius! At least Christian's trying to think. I don't know what he's getting at, but I think I can guess that it is something that amounts to a dogmatic account of "atheism bad, religion good."

It is not my intention to keep anybody guessing. My intention is clear, the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.

I want to address these inconsistencies via the logical progressions. This says nothing about the morality of the individual who are atheists, only about the inconsistencies of atheism and morality.

BTW, if these are found, that does not mean religion good, obviously. It would be clear false dichotomy. The characteristics of atheism says nothing about the characteristics of religion other than atheists don't have a religion.

Explain the moral gaps you speak of. That's all there is to it.