Evidence for God from Science

New article has been released on the psychology of a psychopath and they have found that psychopaths do not lack empathy for other humans, it's just that they can switch it on and off at will.

This blows a huge hole in some atheistic arguments about responsibility for ones actions, as they can turn empathy on and off at will, this means they have a choice to do so and are culpable for their actions.

With proper training they think they can get them to permanently engage the empathy sectors in the brain.

Just thought I would let you guys know, as I have seen this argument being used before to slander God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23431793



Dan

Well the article actually says things like this,

"Our work shows it's not that simple. They don't lack empathy but they have a switch to turn it on and off. By default, it seems to be off."

The fact that they have the capacity to switch empathy on, at least under certain conditions, could have a positive side to it, Prof Keysers said.

I highlight those points to show that the newspaper article shows that things are quite complicated.

The nice thing is that there's a link to the actual paper and hence the report of the science the newspaper article is reporting on. Though this is much reading and I have little time at the moment.

Still, very interesting stuff.

Very much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:Well the article actually says things like this,

"Our work shows it's not that simple. They don't lack empathy but they have a switch to turn it on and off. By default, it seems to be off."

The fact that they have the capacity to switch empathy on, at least under certain conditions, could have a positive side to it, Prof Keysers said.

I highlight those points to show that the newspaper article shows that things are quite complicated.

The nice thing is that there's a link to the actual paper and hence the report of the science the newspaper article is reporting on. Though this is much reading and I have little time at the moment.

Still, very interesting stuff.

Very much cheers to all.

I understand that it is complicated, but it seems to indicate that they have a choice to choose empathy if they want to.

That I find interesting and it flies in the face of many arguments I have heard.

I will be interested to hear your thoughts when you have more time.

God bless

Dan

? My thoughts ?

From the cursory reading of the newspaper article? That a small group of folks diagnosed with physiological physios have been shown that they can, sort of, empathize.

This seems to be a discovery since before now those diagnosed with the psychosis were deemed to not be able to relate to others.

In general, there still seems to be the problem of those with the psychology of a psychopath not relating to others.

Again, a quick and nasty reply as my short time permits.

Thadeyus wrote:? My thoughts ?

From the cursory reading of the newspaper article? That a small group of folks diagnosed with physiological physios have been shown that they can, sort of, empathize.

This seems to be a discovery since before now those diagnosed with the psychosis were deemed to not be able to relate to others.

In general, there still seems to be the problem of those with the psychology of a psychopath not relating to others.

Again, a quick and nasty reply as my short time permits.

The part I am interested in is that there seems to be a choice to be relational or remain disconnected.

It would seem that being disconnected from others is the default position for them but they still retain the capacity to change that, this denotes a choice wether they wish to work on it and improve its function or remain disconnected.

I have seen atheists argue that God if he exists is evil because he created people to behave in an antisocial way and that they have no choice in the matter.

We now know that this may not be the case after all.

I have a friend who is a diagnosed sociopath, he struggles to feel empathy and a whole host of other emotions, as a Christian he has to work hard on these issues and as a result has curbed some of his anti social behaviour.

No matter what cards we are dealt, we have the capacity to choose to change.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:The part I am interested in is that there seems to be a choice to be relational or remain disconnected.

It would seem that being disconnected from others is the default position for them but they still retain the capacity to change that, this denotes a choice whether they wish to work on it and improve its function or remain disconnected.

I have seen atheists argue that God if he exists is evil because he created people to behave in an antisocial way and that they have no choice in the matter.

We now know that this may not be the case after all.

I have a friend who is a diagnosed sociopath, he struggles to feel empathy and a whole host of other emotions, as a Christian he has to work hard on these issues and as a result has curbed some of his anti social behavior.

No matter what cards we are dealt, we have the capacity to choose to change.

Best wishes to you, your closest and your friend.

As towards your comment which seems to be "Why does God allow bad things..." ?

Well...the closest thing I've read is the quote from Epicurus.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Now, going back to the issue of the discussion; Psycopathy,

That we know that such people can 'affect their switch' and that a small test group know that they can 'affect their switch' is not saying that all the other folks with the condition know that they can 'affect their switch' (Or that they've even been diagnosed etc).

So...said people would seem to really still not have a choice in the matter. The small study you've link (As interesting and informative as it is) might have a small, ripple on effect.

So...does that kind of put us back to "Bad things happen.." and "Why?"

Very much cheers to you and yours.

Thadeyus wrote:
As towards your comment which seems to be "Why does God allow bad things..." ?

Well...the closest thing I've read is the quote from Epicurus.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

There is a flaw in your quote, Omnipotence in the Christian definition is God being all powerful within his own nature. For example God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, it is not within his nature to do so because it is an absurdity, another example is God cannot make a square circle. These examples have no bearing on God's omnipotence and the same goes for evil existing because of freewill, God cannot create a universe with freewill agents that does not have the potential for evil to exist because to do so would be a logical contradiction.

Now, going back to the issue of the discussion; Psycopathy,

Sounds like a plan.

That we know that such people can 'affect their switch' and that a small test group know that they can 'affect their switch' is not saying that all the other folks with the condition know that they can 'affect their switch' (Or that they've even been diagnosed etc).

Of course this is only a small study which will lead to larger studies and I can't wait to read them.

So...said people would seem to really still not have a choice in the matter. The small study you've link (As interesting and informative as it is) might have a small, ripple on effect.

I doubt it will only have a small effect, I believe all people have a choice to behave how they want to in spite of their primal urges and I think this paper is only the start of our understanding of these conditions and as they progress I believe they will find that these people are making a choice to behave the way they do.

So...does that kind of put us back to "Bad things happen.." and "Why?"

Bad things happen because we let them, I like the quote below.

“Sometimes I would like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it.”

“But I’m afraid He would ask me the same question.”

Instead of fixing a problem that we are able to fix, we look for someone to blame, it's not God's fault for giving us freewill, it is our fault for abusing it.

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Instead of fixing a problem that we are able to fix, we look for someone to blame, it's not God's fault for giving us freewill, it is our fault for abusing it.

*Nods* I find pretty much everything you've replies with interesting, thoughtful and succinct.

Though in regards to your very last comment it kind of leaves out the 'Bad' things that happen that humanity has no control over. Are they/How are they still humanities fault?

(Such as the natural disasters and such.)

*Um...have I drifted from the OP? *Ponders*

Thadeyus wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Instead of fixing a problem that we are able to fix, we look for someone to blame, it's not God's fault for giving us freewill, it is our fault for abusing it.

*Nods* I find pretty much everything you've replies with interesting, thoughtful and succinct.

Though in regards to your very last comment it kind of leaves out the 'Bad' things that happen that humanity has no control over. Are they/How are they still humanities fault?

(Such as the natural disasters and such.)

Hi Thad, that's an excellent question and a tough one at that, I would like to approach it from three angles.

There are three assumptions that are built into this question, the first assumption is that death is a bad thing and while you may disagree with me because of your beliefs, you have to understand that from the Christian perspective death is not a finality and is a joyous moment because we will be receiving the ultimate good which is God.

The second assumption is that suffering is a completely evil and bad thing, from the Christian perspective that is not necessarily so, when we endure suffering it gives us reason to search for answers and search for God to receive an ultimate good. Through suffering we are drawn together to help one another, suffering has inspired many people to change their lives and the lives of others. For the Christian suffering is finite, in the face of eternity anything we suffer here is but a small blip and really quite inconsequential.
We all suffer to some extent even without natural disasters, some depression, anxiety, oppression, disease, broken heartedness etc and through our suffering we bond and feel compassion, love, hope, joy etc.

The third assumption is that the world the way it is now, is how God intended it to be, in the Christian view that is not so. Through our rebellion against God we bought sin into the world, now we have to deal with it, it's not God fault because he gave us freewill, it's our fault for abusing it.

*Um...have I drifted from the OP? *Ponders*

Never mind, I have found this converse more appealing and thought provoking.


God bless Dan

Hi Thad

I found this blog on the problem of pain and suffering/natural disasters which may be of interest to you.