I am a woman born 1949 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:

The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

459. Religion And Harm

Religion And Harm

For a non-religious person, Epicurus' principle of the importance of not harming and not being harmed is a rational principle for human interactions. 

But christianity and some other religions teach people, that it is ok to suffer and to inflict harm, because compensation and reward will come in the afterlife granted by their god.  

This has serious consequences, when a religious majority installs a level of harm as the social norm of what people are expected to suffer without resistance or protest.   The non-religious minority is damaged in a subtle way.  

1. Comparing two victims, the religious victim RV and the non-religious victim AV.  
When both are exposed to the same harm inflicted upon them, they both experience the same pain.   But their external reactions are very different.  
Victim AV disagrees to be harmed and therefore resists, shows signs of pain and expresses outrage and protest.  
Victim RV submits to be harmed with self-control, resignation and docility.   The suffering as accepted god's will requires compliance and submission to enhance the reward in the afterlife.  
As a consequence, the same harm appears outwardly to do much worse damage on victim AV than on victim RV, while in reality, both suffer the same.

2.  Comparing two harm-doers, the religious harm-doer RD and the non-religious harm-doer AD.  
The religious harm-doer RD accepts to do harm and delegates all responsibility to the god.  Therefore RDs cannot be influenced by the difference of the victims' either expressed or hidden suffering.   They harm AVs and RVs with the same lack of feeling responsible.  In the worst case, the RDs even believe, that harming is beneficial by enhancing the victims' reward in the afterlife.  

The real tragic problem are the consequences of the religious attitude to harming upon the ADs.   

Many ADs are able to have empathy, consideration and responsibility.  They change their behavior, whenever they get aware of having accidentally harmed someone.   This is easy, as long as they are interacting mostly with AVs, whose reactions reflect the real amount of harm suffered.   These ADs are motivated to avoid harming and to learn how to avoid it.  
Unfortunately in a society, where the majority of victims are religious, ADs are misled by not getting feedback from the harmed RVs.   The more often harmed RVs seem outwardly not to be affected, the more often an AD is misled to wrongly assume, that the actually harming behavior were by far not as bad as it really is to any AV.   Over time this leads to a tragic desensitization of ADs, who lose realistic awareness of what harm they are really doing.
When then the desensitized AD gets feedback from a harmed AV, the rare AV's strong reaction is compared with the lacking or weak reaction displayed by the majority of outwardly submissive RVs. The reaction, that is adequate to the harm, appears extreme by comparison with the suppressed reaction of the RVs.  
The desensitized AD does not intend to harm, but has lost the awareness for the magnitude of the harm done and the ability to comprehend the need to improve the behavior as a consequence of the AV's feedback.   
Instead the desensitized AD considers the AV's subjective experience of being harmed as a personal problem and defect of the AV.   The AD has been misled to consider the majority of RVs as normal and expects healthy AVs to be like RVs.   

The delusion of the religious majority in a christian society has the detrimental effect, that non-religious persons are as prone to inflict harm as are the religious believers.