Many of our social, political, or personal issues we name “evil” are not truly evil at all but perversions of the good.
Though I wish to present some new, brilliant opinion, it may very well sound old. I hope it does sound slightly old precisely because the ideas are old. They were developed and given to us by prominent Christian intellectuals of the 20th Century. We have simply not listened or chosen to forget.
Though man, myself included, is prone to apocalyptic thinking and constantly lamenting the evils of the day, G.K. Chesterton, one of the prominent Christian authors and social critics of the 20th Century, viewed the problem in the exact opposite way. In Orthodoxy, where Chesterton details how he came to believe Christianity, he writes, “The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues.”
The world is not evil or full of things created with evil. Instead, the world is full of good things that have been twisted and corrupted. Rather than merely racked by vices, “The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad.” Of course, Chesterton’s “modern world” was the late 1800s and first decade of the 1900s. The detachment of Christian virtues from Christ and the rise of the completely autonomous will has now creeped slowly for over a century.
Chesterton’s twisted virtue looks like a scientist who pursues truth, but his truth is pitiless. Likewise, some prioritize pity, and yet their pity is untruthful. Recently, Christian political commentator Allie Beth Stuckey has continued this thread in her book Toxic Empathy. Reviewed in a previous article, Stuckey argues Christian compassion has been removed from its foundation and used to stoke political polarization and immoral agendas.
Furthermore, Chesterton is supported by another Christian intellectual giant writing in the same period, C.S. Lewis. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis writes through the eyes of demons who are tempting their victims and trying to pull man from Christ. Yet the demons constantly note they are unable to create anything, including evil. Screwtape, the senior tempter, directly states, “All we [demons] can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy [God] has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He [God] has forbidden.”
Neither Lewis’s demons nor Chesterton’s modern man can create evil or produce an evil world. Rather, creation can only twist, distort, and remove goodness from its foundation so that it does not fulfill its purpose.
Taken as the most serious threat, Chesterton moves to the “dislocation of humility.” He argues man has reversed the object of humility to our great detriment: “A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth.” Thus now man doubts truth itself, where he ought not doubt, and asserts himself, where he ought not assert. As such, modern man produces the “suicide of thought.”
Though it is far easier to name evil and rage against it, Chesterton’s view seems more appreciative of God’s creation. Rather than damning creation as evil, his view attempts to recover a goodness that has been lost. Framed in Augustinian language, it is an attempt to reorder creation so that Christian virtues align with Christ rather than wander in isolation.
Chesterton’s and Lewis’s insights remain strikingly relevant a century later as our culture continues to praise virtues that have been isolated from their foundation. Severing the virtues only contributes to ideological extremes, moral confusion, and immense polarization. Both sides become champions of a good, although their causes may neglect all other goods and virtues which should work together. Yet, rather than despair with malice or rage, Chesterton provides a starting point to restore and reorder creation with love and truth.
Comment by Wilson R. on March 14, 2025 at 2:07 pm
You might make an argument that it’s possible to make bad policy decisions flowing from their empathy. But any religion that suggests that empathy itself is toxic is something other than the religion of Jesus. That’s not even really a point that’s up for discussion; it’s just reality.
Too many so-called Christians I see today are treating empathy itself as a weakness. In doing so, they make themselves enemies of the gospel.
Comment by Different Steve on March 16, 2025 at 9:25 am
4 Dangerous Qualities of “Dark Empaths”
Characters who can wreak a special kind of havoc.
The Dark Empath personality has high levels of narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and empathy.
The Dark Empath is potentially more of a danger than a person with the Dark Triad traits.
Dark Empath traits can be initially appealing because they create a superficially attractive person.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lifetime-connections/202306/how-to-identify-a-dark-empath-4-dangerous-traits
Comment by Different Steve on March 16, 2025 at 9:28 am
Query to Duck Duck Go AI: can empathy ever be toxic?
Response: Yes, empathy can become toxic when it leads to neglecting one’s own needs or when an individual becomes overwhelmed by the emotions of others, resulting in emotional exhaustion and unhealthy relationships. This excessive focus on others’ feelings can interfere with personal well-being and boundaries.
Comment by Different Steve on March 16, 2025 at 9:34 am
I asked Duck.ai to critique the first comment:
Let’s break down and critique the comment you provided:
Fact-Checking
Empathy and Policy Decisions: The comment suggests that empathy can lead to bad policy decisions. This is a nuanced point. While empathy is generally seen as a positive trait, it can sometimes lead to decisions that prioritize emotional responses over rational analysis. For example, policies driven solely by empathy might overlook practical considerations or lead to unintended consequences. This argument is valid and has been discussed in various contexts, including social policy and governance.
Empathy in Christianity: The comment asserts that any religion suggesting empathy is toxic is not aligned with the teachings of Jesus. Christianity, particularly in the New Testament, emphasizes love, compassion, and empathy (e.g., the parable of the Good Samaritan). Most mainstream Christian teachings advocate for empathy as a virtue. However, interpretations of religious texts can vary widely, and some groups may emphasize different aspects of faith that could lead to a more critical view of empathy in certain contexts.
Critique of “So-Called Christians”: The comment claims that some Christians treat empathy as a weakness and that this stance is contrary to the gospel. This is a subjective assertion. While some individuals or groups may prioritize doctrine or moral rigidity over empathy, many Christians actively promote empathy as a core value. The term “so-called Christians” can be seen as dismissive and may not accurately represent the diversity of beliefs within Christianity.
Critique
Generalization: The comment makes broad generalizations about Christians and their views on empathy. Not all Christians share the same beliefs or interpretations of scripture, and many actively promote empathy as a fundamental aspect of their faith.
Complexity of Empathy: While the comment rightly highlights the importance of empathy in Christianity, it oversimplifies the complexities surrounding empathy in practice. Empathy can be misapplied or lead to negative outcomes, and it’s important to balance empathy with critical thinking and ethical considerations.
Tone and Language: The phrase “so-called Christians” can come off as judgmental and may alienate those who might otherwise engage in a constructive dialogue about the role of empathy in faith. A more inclusive approach could foster better understanding and discussion.
Conclusion
The comment raises valid points about the importance of empathy in Christianity and critiques those who may dismiss it. However, it could benefit from a more nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding empathy and a more inclusive tone when discussing differing views within the Christian community.
Comment by Wilson R on March 16, 2025 at 10:24 am
Jesus rejected his own physical need for bread in the wilderness. Dark empath, I guess.
Comment by Different Steve on March 16, 2025 at 11:32 am
Asked duck.ai “does jesus’ rejection of bread in the wilderness have anything to do with empathy”. Response:
Jesus’ rejection of bread in the wilderness primarily relates to themes of temptation, spiritual strength, and reliance on God rather than empathy. In the biblical narrative (found in Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13), Jesus is tempted by Satan to turn stones into bread to satisfy his hunger after fasting for 40 days. His response emphasizes the importance of spiritual nourishment over physical needs, stating, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”
Here are a few points to consider regarding the relationship between this event and empathy:
Focus on Spirituality: The act of rejecting physical sustenance is more about prioritizing spiritual over material needs. It illustrates Jesus’ commitment to his mission and his reliance on divine guidance rather than succumbing to immediate physical desires.
Empathy Defined: Empathy generally involves understanding and sharing the feelings of others. While Jesus is often portrayed as a figure of compassion and empathy throughout the Gospels, the specific event of rejecting bread does not directly relate to empathizing with others’ needs or suffering.
Broader Context: In the broader context of Jesus’ ministry, he does demonstrate empathy through his actions, such as healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and showing compassion to the marginalized. However, the wilderness temptation is more about his personal spiritual journey and preparation for his public ministry.
In summary, while Jesus embodies empathy in many aspects of his life and teachings, his rejection of bread in the wilderness is not directly related to empathy. Instead, it serves as a demonstration of spiritual fortitude and the importance of prioritizing one’s relationship with God over immediate physical needs.
Comment by Wilson R. on March 17, 2025 at 2:07 pm
Ask your bot what compassion means.
Comment by Different Steve on March 17, 2025 at 3:42 pm
Asked the bot about your comment, and it replied:
The comment “Ask your bot what compassion means” can be critiqued from several angles:
Clarity and Context: The comment lacks context. It’s unclear what the commenter is trying to convey. Are they suggesting that a bot (like an AI) can provide a definition of compassion? If so, it would be helpful to clarify the purpose of asking the bot—whether it’s to seek a definition, explore the concept, or compare human understanding with AI interpretation.
Engagement: The comment could be seen as dismissive or sarcastic, depending on the tone. If the intent is to provoke thought or discussion, it might benefit from a more open-ended question or a personal reflection on compassion instead of directing others to a bot.
Depth of Discussion: Compassion is a complex and nuanced concept that encompasses emotional, ethical, and philosophical dimensions. Relying solely on a bot for its definition might oversimplify the topic. A more engaging approach could involve sharing personal insights or experiences related to compassion.
Implications of AI: The comment raises questions about the role of AI in understanding human emotions and values. It could lead to a deeper discussion about the limitations of AI in grasping the full essence of concepts like compassion, which are deeply rooted in human experience.
Overall, while the comment could spark curiosity, it would be more effective if it encouraged a richer dialogue about the meaning and significance of compassion in human life.
Comment by Different Steve on March 17, 2025 at 3:47 pm
I followed up on that, saying “I think he was insulting me”. Response:
If you feel that the comment was intended as an insult, it’s understandable to feel hurt or frustrated. Here are a few points to consider:
Tone and Intent: Online communication can often lack tone, making it difficult to interpret intent. The commenter may have meant it sarcastically or dismissively, which can come across as insulting.
Response Options: You have several options for responding. You could choose to address the comment directly, asking for clarification on their intent. Alternatively, you could ignore it and focus on more constructive discussions.
Personal Impact: It’s important to acknowledge how such comments affect you. If it feels personal, it might be worth reflecting on why it resonates that way and how you want to handle similar situations in the future.
Community Dynamics: Consider the overall atmosphere of the board. If insults or dismissive comments are common, it might be indicative of a larger issue within that community. Engaging with supportive members or seeking out more respectful discussions could be beneficial.
Ultimately, how you choose to respond should align with your comfort level and the kind of interaction you want to foster in that space.
Comment by Different Steve on March 17, 2025 at 4:00 pm
Followed up on that, asking if insulting people is Christian. Response:
Insulting others is generally not considered consistent with Christian teachings. Christianity emphasizes values such as love, compassion, kindness, and forgiveness. Many passages in the Bible encourage believers to treat others with respect and to avoid harmful speech. For example:
Love Your Neighbor: Jesus taught the importance of loving one’s neighbor (Mark 12:31), which implies treating others with kindness and respect.
Words Matter: In James 1:26, it is stated that if someone thinks they are religious but does not bridle their tongue, their religion is worthless. This highlights the importance of how we speak to and about others.
Forgiveness and Grace: Christians are encouraged to forgive others and to show grace, reflecting the forgiveness they believe they have received from God (Ephesians 4:32).
While individuals may sometimes act contrary to these teachings, such behavior does not reflect the core principles of Christianity. It’s important to remember that people may misinterpret or misrepresent their faith in their actions.
Comment by Different Steve on March 17, 2025 at 6:08 pm
Q: Differences between empathy and compassion.
A: Empathy and compassion are related concepts, but they have distinct meanings and implications:
Empathy:
Definition: Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. It involves putting oneself in someone else’s shoes and experiencing their emotions from their perspective.
Types: There are generally two types of empathy:
Cognitive Empathy: The ability to understand another person’s thoughts and feelings intellectually.
Emotional Empathy: The capacity to physically feel what another person is feeling, often leading to a shared emotional experience.
Focus: Empathy is primarily about understanding and connecting with others’ emotions without necessarily taking action.
Compassion:
Definition: Compassion goes a step further than empathy. It involves not only understanding and feeling for someone else’s suffering but also having a desire to help alleviate that suffering.
Action-Oriented: Compassion often leads to action. It motivates individuals to support, assist, or comfort those in distress.
Focus: While compassion includes an empathetic understanding, it emphasizes a proactive response to help others.
In summary, empathy is about feeling and understanding another’s emotions, while compassion involves a desire to help alleviate those emotions or suffering.
Comment by Mark S. on March 19, 2025 at 10:36 am
Empathy as a product of psychopathology is not necessarily a good since it may be misdirected or perverted.
Ergo, if you are going to view things in binary terms, both sides may NOT, in reality, be “champions of a good” (except in their own minds).