Religion is good because it gives the believer an objective and absolute standard of morality

[Vivacia]

(This idea was introduced in another thread, but it felt like an unfair tangent for that thread to be taking in my humble opinion, but one I'd be interested in discussing).

Firstly, I absolutely disagree with the statement.

Secondly, I feel as an atheist I have an objective morality, if not an absolute one.

^of course more integrity would have helped.

Not that all who identify as Christians have faultless integrity. We all still have flaws, a Christ like nature is believed to emerge over time and we have differing starting points. But honesty is valued within the Christian Faith.

Some children, for who funding was secured for, have been effectively treated as 'cash cows', as their individual funding was put to wider use by schools and their needs distorted in order to hold onto this funding.

to hold onto funding

I'm trying to see how this would pan out in my class. You say that he progressed despite the poor educational prognosis. Who was in charge of making that assessment of your son? I think sometimes health care practitioners can really hedge their bets, they don't like to downplay potential problems, it's better for people to be pleasantly surprised than feel disappointed and lied to, unless you feel the Dr's have willfully lied at some point? So your ds thrived at school despite his diagnosis, however you feel that the school limited his achievement for financial gain? Or that they pretended he was doing poorly to keep hold of funding in which case how would this actually affect your child's day to day experience at school?

In my class a child who was able to learn will learn with support, we are learning all the time, not just during the structured phonics and maths sessions, we bring these elements into all our play and are always thinking of ways to work a sneaky bit of education into the role play 'that giant is so mean, let's put some signs up so he knows the rules' (little bit of PSHE in there too) and so on.

Obviously it is differentiated according to where that child is and what the next step is likely to be so that all of them are challenged whether they are writing full sentences or simply learning to match sounds to shapes. If a child is thriving it would take a lot of conspiring between all the adults to ensure that that child didn't progress. I probably don't understand the cross over between what you are accusing the school of and your child's experience in class.

And I am wildly off topic, sorry OP,

ISIS having an objective standard of morality is working wonders in the Middle East don't you think? Only yesterday they were stoning a couple for fornication, I'm led to believe. Religion, revealed by God to humanity, then to be interpreted by humanity, is not a good objective morality in my opinion.

So your ds thrived at school despite his diagnosis, however you feel that the school limited his achievement for financial gain? Or that they pretended he was doing poorly to keep hold of funding in which case how would this actually affect your child's day to day experience at school?

My DC did not receive a firm diagnosis of anything for the Statement just a list of educational needs. Some TAs and teachers were very negative. But thankfully, even though my DC was assigned a 1 to 1 through a Statement, they would take any opportunity not to work 1 to 1 with him - so over the years they gave him less and less attention. Some of the CTS were very ambivalent and left the TAs to it, some were more encouraging. I made it my mission to support what my DC was meant to be learning in school and thankfully he is a quick learner.

If a child is thriving it would take a lot of conspiring between all the adults to ensure that that child didn't progress. I probably don't understand the cross over between what you are accusing the school of and your child's experience in class.

My DC did thrive. I did a lot of teaching a home. (I have a degree in English and Education specialising in KS1). Regarding 'conspiracy' a lot of it IMO is subconscious and teacher assessment can be subjective, especially with the controversy that surrounded even the requirement to report sub levels at the time. I don't actually blame any one individual, I think the problem was more a a mindset. All funding and extra 'help' must be good, right? As to more of the how it happens this (sorry it is very long thread) illustrates more:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/1862438-Teachers-do-not-adhere-to-Statemented-1-to-1-support-do-not-believe-in-sub-levels-make-APP-assessments-up-How-much-of-what-parents-are-told-by-schools-about-teaching-is-a-box-ticking-exercise

Towards the end of the thread some actually quotes LA policy which showed just how far reaching the 'rot' can get.

I think that like many traits, empathy is both innate and learned.

This was a good point made up-thread by messyisthenewtidy.

My opinion is that the propensity to be empathetic is hard-wired into our brains as complex social animals. But it requires appropriate socialisation if that propensity is to be an expressed trait.

Empathy, reciprocity, altruism or other behaviours not centred on the individual may be overridden in certain situations if other more pressing needs are incompatible with those behaviours. But I don’t think the basic predisposition to behave in pro-social ways can be denied.

Some scientists believe that mirror neurons – first discovered in the brains of monkeys – play a crucial role in moral behaviour. These neurons are activated in the brain of an observing individual in response to some behaviour in an observed individual and ‘mirror’ the original pattern of neural firing in the brain of the observed individual.

It is as if there is a resonance between the brains of the two individuals, such that the observing individual gains some insight into the mindset of the observed. The phenomenon is thought to facilitate the development of empathy in humans and – to a more modest degree - some other social animals.

Of course, this innate feature of our brains is not sufficient in itself for empathy to develop. An individual must be immersed in a responsive nurturing social environment to allow the empathy seed to mature.

In short, I do feel that basic morality in the form of a consideration for the well-being of others is a very general and natural human characteristic, transcending cultural or religious background. But of course things can go wrong in particular cases. In any given individual there could be a problem with the inherent tendency to be moral - whether through a genetic aberration or a physiological problem in the person concerned. Environmental influences such as an upbringing that is/was neglectful or abusive in some way could also undermine the natural inclination to behave pro-socially.

ISIS having an objective standard of morality is working wonders in the Middle East don't you think?

exactly. I think that even if you believe god exists and that he can communicate with you clearly, we shouldn't necessarily do what he says because it may be immoral.

I'm tired and debated-ed out but just want to say thanks to caps for sharing about her experiences. Off topic but I'm really interested in care givers experiences of their child's learning so really appreciated your posts.

Empathy.

Do we think that humans tend to more empathy towards other beings perceived or identified as more "like us" or that we feel connected to (e.g. blood relatives, pets), hence there will be different degrees of empathy towards, say, animals vs humans vs insects etc., hence explaining a lot of racism, even gangsters.

If so does the external moral code of "Love thy Neighbour" or "Treat others (i.e. all human beings regardless of race/colour/wealth etc.) as you want to be treated" help to counter the above tendency/instinct for having different degrees of empathy towards different beings?

And does that mean living to The Golden Rule, or even having such a rule (even if humans fail to live up to it), a sign of a more evolved and civilised society?

......

head that's ok. Thankfully, we overcame many of the difficulties and since my DC's Statement has ceased there have been some really encouraging teachers that have made a positive difference. It is lovely for me to hear nice comments - I think I appreciate them more after the somewhat bumpy start to my DC's school career. One area where my faith gave me great strength, is the importance of being encouraging, 'blessing' and not 'cursing'. This was a huge help to me and my DC. Also how destructive moaning and complaining can be, this from professionals, is what I found most obstructive.

Going on from these experiences and incorporating queen's point I think people throughout history have attempted to dehumanise others and exaggerate difference, in order to justify treating them badly.

So we tend to have less empathy towards people different to us? Yes?

If not, why else would we do that?

I disagree. I think if religion teaches us anything it is the similarities between us all; the human endeavour to live well and to not fear death - and the sanctity of life. That previous newborn and that wrinkled 90 year old who deserves the best care in old age. A God created everyone unique but similar, and "Treat each other as you want to be treated yourself" from Jesus' teachings is paralleled in all religion. The Middle East situation I mentioned before I personally think is political and historical; the Treaty of Sevres, the Byzantium and Ottoman Empires and the Treaty of Sevres, Palestine vs Israel. It isn't true and wonderful religion there, it is a subjective interpretation of religion for political gains. It's similar in the USA too when you think of the elections there and how they regularly mention abortion and the death penalty.

You could imagine that this propensity to favour those who are like us is to do with group survival? Similar to lions staving off unfamiliar groups from a killing.

Good point. I guess we are just all animals. Do you find it hard to understand, though, how a human could do heinous things to another human whereas a lion ripping apart another animal is expected? You'd think these people would have a conscience. Where has it gone?

Thing is queen we can choose what to focus on. I sometimes think people strive to focus on otherness and difference because they want an excuse not to behave in a more kind and loving way. Because to do this, ie. love, means sacrificing some of their own needs. So they manipulate their own thoughts and focus, in order to more easily behave in a more 'animalistic' / 'survival of the fittest' way.

Fenny the Bible frames this type of behaviour in terms of people 'hardening their hearts'.

heinous things

when you have people visiting wanton cruelty on others, it is chilling and there will by a myriad of reasons how they are capable of such actions, poor socialisation, poor emotional regulation, poor reasoning and mental illness etc.

head if you study psychology, it can be seen how apparently normal people, who are capable of horrific acts, are. To not recognise this, would be to make them somehow 'other' and 'dehumanises' them and the whole process which justifies ill treatment starts up again...

That's the reason I cited mental illness last, most people who commit murder for example screen negatively for mental illness. It's also why I avoid the word evil because it can create an us and them mentality. Am I capable of horrific cruelty? In the right circumstances yes! And if I do it will be a result of the reasons I listed.

It's this very issue that makes me deeply uncomfortable about the justifications used for the Old Testament atrocities 'the Amalakites were really bad, they were all really evil' etc. It worries me how easily some have defended the slaughter using such dehumanising reasoning, which as you say is very dangerous.

Obviously I don't think the slaughter even happened, it's people's reasoning now that concerns me, but you know what, I did it too once about the exact same thing and undoubtedly still do in other ways with other issues.

You are all so clever!

I've studied philosophy and theology at graduate and post-graduate level and haven't had/read such a great debate for YEARS. in fact, I am really very rusty and you all seem to be well-oiled!

head yes there are some horrific parts in the OT, which are extremely difficult to understand. To me it shows just how flawed people are and how laws and education is not enough to alleviate this, alone. But the seeds of 'evil', for want of another word, exist in all of us. Warfare does happen. WW1 was horrendous, in its atrocities but was it necessary?

My own decision to believe on Christ is a conscious commitment to turn away from evil, to value love, as He preached. I believe Christ, as the embodiment of God, is the easiest way to understand the nature of God (who I believe is good), so focus on this.

Fenny I'm not really that clever, in the scheme of things, but we are very well practiced in debating on here!

^i meant WW2. Typo.

but god was the author of the violence? what is difficult fot you is that you want to believe he is a good god.

head What is difficult to comprehend, heartbreaking in fact, is some people being beyond hope of redemption. From what I've glebed from some Bible studies, is that people were not judged, the same, upon death, if they were acting in complete ignorance. However the actions of people acting in ignorance, plus flaws being inherited, can still be very damaging and sometimes they have to be stopped, what action that must take can obviously vary. Regarding the OT and the Bible this is before the redemption through Christ was (fully) available. Why did it take so long? I've heard said before enough people had to be ready to accept Him.