What Do You Think Really Happen with Religions in ST?

[Captain Verata]

Who says, I mean really? if you take the entire Human species and excluded all people with religion, spirituality and faith, then excluded all people who in all honesty don't know or have formed no opinion on the matter, how many people newtype alpha are left who actively believe that there is no God?

World wide (no, not just in Europe) it something like three to five percent, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. So what happen now? Well all those people are wrong and only the little group is right, and anyone not in the little group is somehow self-deceived? They must be, because otherwise they'd believe the same way as the little group does.

Argumentum ad populum- the logical fallacy that says something is true or false based on the amount of people believe it.

So your point is extremely lame. But to give some stats on non-believers(we go by many names), they make up 10%-16% of the worlds population. It is hard to track such things some times because many countries just lump up any nontheist and anyone not following an organized religion. In the United States, about 10% is nontheist and tend to be younger people. 93% of the National Academy of Sciences claim to not to believe in any god or to be agnostic. Also, even though I don't have any stats to prove this, I think common sense should tell us that there is an historical upward trend in nontheistic views as we gain more knowledge on how our universe works, spreading this knowledge, and aren't being killed or tortured(as much) like in the past.

There is much to say in the theistic-atheistic debate but just because one side has more believers doesn't make you right. For example, many people back in the day thought the world was flat. Yeah, get my point.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

That Flat Earth thing...not exactly true...

As for the statistic about scientists, considering the theological error of literalism (supposing the Bible to be a science manual, among other things), it seems to me we have a reaction against that. If you take literalism out of the mix, then there is absolutely nothing incompatible between science and faith.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yeah exept for the fact that science is a consistently reliable way to assess reality and faith isn't.

 

[sonak]

I am interested in hearing who should be the said benevolent tyrant. Don't tell me Saddam Hussein was benevolent...

In that situation, I would have settled for EFFECTIVE; towards the end, Saddam was neither.

But you've got to wonder at a democratic government that includes, among its power brokers, the various followers of Moqtada al Sadr. And you thought Democrats and Republicans had their feuds, at least they're not SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER between votes.

In this and many other situations, one is sometimes faced with a choice between "democracy" and "effective government" and not necessarily having both. The same situation applies to organized religions: in a choice between independence of thought and effective leadership, the latter is generally preferable.

Benevolent tyrants don't work. A) They die and then you're left at square one. So we re-invade Iraq if installed President Ben V. Tyrannous is succeeded by his self-centered son or nephew or strongest warlord? B) They may be nice but incompetent, and overthrown, or leave their nations in the hands of incompetents. Do we bail out the Iraqi economy every other dictator ruling by divine right can't balance a checkbook? Democracy works because, like capitalism, it's competitive.

Correction: democracy works WHEN it is competitive. Don't forget that Iraq REMAINED a democracy during the entirety of Saddam's rule; he made it clear at all times that anyone who seriously challenged his rule would be horribly tortured to death along with their families, making the question "Who are you voting for?" sort of a rhetorical one.

That is, of course, an example of a malevolent dictator. A benevolent one, though, can be assumed to STEP DOWN when the time is appropriate, or at the very least value the good of his country more than his own legacy and avoid a lengthy and bloody power struggle if and when the people decide to remove him from power. This is one of the reasons why the proper selection of a successor is one of the criterion for a "good emperor" when speaking of Ancient Rome. It isn't enough just to govern effectively, but to make sure effective government will still exist after you're gone.

Iraq under Saddam was in no way, shape, or form a democracy. I don't know how you can suggest that unless your being facetious.

One of the most key ingredients to a democracy is a peaceful transfer of power and FREE elections. How did Saddam's Iraq meet those criteria?

Your idealized system is simply unworkable. One person is always going to be flawed, have their own biases, etc.
Where would the checks on powers come from?

How would opposing policies get their chance to be implemented to test workability?


Your philosophy is very similar to authoritarian critiques of democracy, with their emphasis on the maintenance on "orderliness" over the "chaos" of democracy. A creepy idea that's led to a lot of bad results over the years.

 

[Navaros]

Yeah exept for the fact that science is a consistently reliable way to assess reality and faith isn't.

The quoted statement is problematic because it implies that "science" is something from which faith is absent, yet that is untrue.

"Science" is based on theories, which are created based on often-wrong interpretations or extrapolations of data by men. Belief in the accuracy of those interpretations requires faith.

If "science" was a consistently reliable way to" assess reality," then scientific claims wouldn't be changing all the time. The only reason they change all the time is because they constantly fail to reliably "assess reality." If they were a reliable assessment of reality in the first place, then there would be no room for them to change.

Atheists like to claim superiority for their belief system on the grounds that it is not based on faith, but that is a false premise. There is no such thing as a belief system from which faith is absent, and every atheist has a belief system with faith as a large part of it.

 

[Saspearia]

This is a fascinating subject and I have dwelled on it for some time.
I think in Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, Humans will have put religion aside for more humanistic values. I read somewhere that he really had to battle the TV executives to stop them putting a chaplain on the Enterprise.
There was obviously a lot of this vision coming through in TNG, particularly the episode "who watches the watchers" where the Mintakans had "out-grown" religion.
- I can imagine if you were religious watching is episode it might seem a bit insulting.

"Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!" - Picard

But then there are plenty of references to suggest religion is alive in the 24th Century, I remember in Data's Day (I think) Data mentions they are celebrating the Hindu festival of light on the Enterprise.
Then theres Sisko, his Dad quotes the Bible which doesn't necessarily mean he is religious but I know very few people can do that off-hand.

I wonder if, in the 24th Century people have kept the traditions of religion to maintain some sort of cultural stem to the past. But may not actually believe or live with the belief of a God? ...I mean after you have encountered Q and that guy from the centre of the Galaxy - you would really have to question it!

Sas

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The only problem with this idea is that GOD ISN'T REAL

Who says, I mean really?

It's a moot point, because even if God WERE real, he does not participate in organized religion in a leadership capacity. For the purposes of this discussion, he is equivalent to non-existence, or at least physical absence from the material world in which his followers actually dwell.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if God can be claimed or even proven to be benevolent, because God is not an active leadership figure in ANY world religion.

if you take the entire Human species and excluded all people with religion, spirituality and faith, then excluded all people who in all honesty don't know or have formed no opinion on the matter, how many people newtype alpha are left who actively believe that there is no God?

What difference does that make? I never said God wasn't popular, I said God wasn't REAL. Lots of incredibly popular things aren't real; Star Trek, for example.

Popularity is not the arbiter for truth. Vaccines don't cause autism just because ten million people think they do.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yeah exept for the fact that science is a consistently reliable way to assess reality and faith isn't.

The quoted statement is problematic because it implies that "science" is something from which faith is absent, yet that is untrue.

"Science" is based on theories, which are created based on often-wrong interpretations or extrapolations of data by men. Belief in the accuracy of those interpretations requires faith.

If "science" was a consistently reliable way to" assess reality," then scientific claims wouldn't be changing all the time. The only reason they change all the time is because they constantly fail to reliably "assess reality." If they were a reliable assessment of reality in the first place, then there would be no room for them to change.

Atheists like to claim superiority for their belief system on the grounds that it is not based on faith, but that is a false premise. There is no such thing as a belief system from which faith is absent, and every atheist has a belief system with faith as a large part of it.

I can't believe how wrong you are on almost every point. Science, the method of science is not faith based. It is based on evidence. It is also based on the peer review process which is very strict.

And your idea that theories are faith-based shows your real lack of knowledge. Most people on the street think teh word theory means what hypothesis actually means, a conclusion that seems reasonable based on the evidence.

However, the scientific word theory actually defines a model that is based on facts that have been discovered. To create a theory in this sense is to achieve the highest level of analysis and peer review.

Sure the model can change, and only the arrogance of religion would imply that something can't, as you say "change all the time" (like a bnook awritten by people in the Bronze Age). Models can change. Take the theory of gravity. We all know gravity is a fact.. we can demonstrate it by dropping something. But it is considered a theory because the model we have to describe how it works is based on available information. As we discover new information, that model can change as a result, thoguh doubtful that will change the idea that gravity is somehting that, in fact, does not exist. Wehn Newton came up with his equations, his theory, for gravity, they very well matched all the data he had, and were collaborated and checked by otehrs as matching the facts. They worked. However. he only developed equations based on how gravity behaves on the surface of the earth, and his equations failed to accurately consider other spatial bodies in a vacuum. Enter Einstein, who came in and modified the model, altered the theory based on new facts. That's how science works. It is not faith based.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Iraq under Saddam was in no way, shape, or form a democracy.

Yes it was. It was a defective democracy in which the vote was always rigged and only one candidate from one political party was ever allowed to run. We like to claim it WASN'T a democracy because the means of excluding non-baathists from the ballot was the threat of violence and/or torture and execution.

Just because the system is implemented horribly doesn't change its definition; a defective democracy is still a democracy, just as a capitalist economy that has been dominated by a single gigantic monopoly is still a capitalist economy.

One of the most key ingredients to a democracy is a peaceful transfer of power and FREE elections.

To be sure, that is the ingredient for a SUCCESSFUL democracy, which Iraq was not, and technically, still isn't.

Your idealized system is simply unworkable. One person is always going to be flawed, have their own biases, etc.
Where would the checks on powers come from?

First of all it's not idealized, it's just a matter of statistics. It's easier to assure the benevolence of a single individual than an entire government. The only problem with a dictatorship is the question of HOW you assure that benevolence in the first place and how to remove that dictator if he doesn't measure up. Democracy seeks to accomplish this through elections, but has the added disadvantage that the voters have to thoroughly vet dozens of candidates in dozens of positions to make sure they have the country's best interests at heart, and obviously some of them won't.

But a defective democracy is NOT preferable to an effective dictatorship, just by virtue of their outcomes: ANY government needs to be able to govern effectively in order to maintain order, and even democracy cannot be created in the absence of order. A highly partisan environment with a great deal of social and political strife has to be brought to order first BEFORE a democratic system can be imposed, and the quickest way to do that is with an autocracy.

Let's face it, as a matter of historical truth, NO political system is more effective at maintaining public order than an autocratic police state.

Your philosophy is very similar to authoritarian critiques of democracy, with their emphasis on the maintenance on "orderliness" over the "chaos" of democracy. A creepy idea that's led to a lot of bad results over the years.

And the results speak for themselves, but my point isn't that democracy causes chaos, my point is that democracy cannot function in the PRESENCE of chaos, and that a properly functioning democratic government is ill-equipped to resolve a situation of anarchy.

And this is the case in terms of organized religions, especially protestants and muslims. What we have here is a sort of doctrinal chaos where anyone from anywhere can write their own interpretation of the law and make it legally binding on a small group of followers. Without a strong central authority to overrule them, who's going to stop them? The only one they would possibly listen to is God, who doesn't talk to anyone and basically isn't real; the only human authorities, they reject as illegitimate and go their own way.

An organized religion of the people, by the people and for the people--so to speak--can only be realized when the ENVIRONMENT of the people is relatively orderly and reason is allowed to prevail. You remove central authority in the middle of a war zone, the first thing you should expect is rampant sectarianism and balkanization.

 

[Paradon]

After skimping through all the post this is why I think we should encourage people to think for themselves (to question everything and everyone, no exceptions) and not use war and violence as a mean to solve their problems. I don't think it's necessary to use violence to solve the problems when there are other better ways to do it without causing harms and injuries to people.

 

[Avatar2.0]

Let's face it, as a matter of historical truth, NO political system is more effective at maintaining public order than an autocratic police state.

Historical truth? Not even close.
History has been full of dictatorships - starting with monarchies and continuing with any type of autocratic regime known to man.
The results - grotesque policies (up to and including oppression and war), succession crisis, civil wars, etc, etc. Again and again.
That's supposed to be stability? Public order?

The democracies have proven to be remarkably stable by comparison to autocracies - historically speaking. And largely lacking the large social movements - usually ending in bloodshed - that frequently characterised autocracies.

Whenever the 'benevolent dictator' ideea was tried - it ended either in the country turning into a democracy or regresssing to the dictatorhip standard.

 

[Arpy]

A democracy in name only is a democracy in name only. If for your personal categorization you'd like to call "President" Saddam Hussein a democratically elected and maintained leader...nope, can't do it. You're just wrong. An election in which every count is rigged and the candidates are murdered is not a legitimate election. No election, no democracy, no Lt Yar!

 

[Avatar2.0]

That Flat Earth thing...not exactly true...

"JUST over five hundred years ago, Christopher Columbus asked the King and Queen of Spain to fund his proposed voyage westwards round the world to reach India.​

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella asked a panel of experts to give their advice. Unfortunately the report which the panel submitted to their majesties was quite bizarre.​

It was impossible to sail round the world, they said, because one would be reaching lands where people could only walk about upside down, and such lands could therefore not exist. ``Is there anyone so foolish as to believe that there is a part of the world in which all things are topsy-turvy, where the trees grow with their branches downwards and where it rains, hails and snows upwards?''​

And as for the Western ocean, they concluded it was infinitely large and therefore unnavigable.​

To us today, this may sound quite lunatic. But at the time these people were considered authoritative and certain to be right, and Columbus was lucky that someone in the government overruled them and gave him his money. These experts were, in the words of Columbus's biographer Washington Irving, "men of consummate erudition who were the greatest luminaries of what has been called the golden age of ecclesiastical learning.'' They were what we would call today the representatives of "mainstream scientific opinion''"


Does this sound as an accurate view of the Earth to you?
As a fringe theory, yes, the ideea of Earth being round was around - see Eratosthenes. The same could be said about atoms, the solar system, etc.
But it was not the ideea embraced by the mainstream scientific community.

As for the statistic about scientists, considering the theological error of literalism (supposing the Bible to be a science manual, among other things), it seems to me we have a reaction against that. If you take literalism out of the mix, then there is absolutely nothing incompatible between science and faith.

This 'theological error' was present from the start - and until today - in most religions, including christianity.
​

Even today - how far are you willing to go with renouncing 'literalism'?
Are you willing to consider, for example, the bible and the qur'an as being 'metaphorical' depictions of a single faith?
Or they're too different for that?

 

[sonak]

Iraq under Saddam was in no way, shape, or form a democracy.

Yes it was. It was a defective democracy in which the vote was always rigged and only one candidate from one political party was ever allowed to run. We like to claim it WASN'T a democracy because the means of excluding non-baathists from the ballot was the threat of violence and/or torture and execution.

Just because the system is implemented horribly doesn't change its definition; a defective democracy is still a democracy, just as a capitalist economy that has been dominated by a single gigantic monopoly is still a capitalist economy.

One of the most key ingredients to a democracy is a peaceful transfer of power and FREE elections.

To be sure, that is the ingredient for a SUCCESSFUL democracy, which Iraq was not, and technically, still isn't.

Your idealized system is simply unworkable. One person is always going to be flawed, have their own biases, etc.
Where would the checks on powers come from?

First of all it's not idealized, it's just a matter of statistics. It's easier to assure the benevolence of a single individual than an entire government. The only problem with a dictatorship is the question of HOW you assure that benevolence in the first place and how to remove that dictator if he doesn't measure up. Democracy seeks to accomplish this through elections, but has the added disadvantage that the voters have to thoroughly vet dozens of candidates in dozens of positions to make sure they have the country's best interests at heart, and obviously some of them won't.

But a defective democracy is NOT preferable to an effective dictatorship, just by virtue of their outcomes: ANY government needs to be able to govern effectively in order to maintain order, and even democracy cannot be created in the absence of order. A highly partisan environment with a great deal of social and political strife has to be brought to order first BEFORE a democratic system can be imposed, and the quickest way to do that is with an autocracy.

Let's face it, as a matter of historical truth, NO political system is more effective at maintaining public order than an autocratic police state.

Your philosophy is very similar to authoritarian critiques of democracy, with their emphasis on the maintenance on "orderliness" over the "chaos" of democracy. A creepy idea that's led to a lot of bad results over the years.

And the results speak for themselves, but my point isn't that democracy causes chaos, my point is that democracy cannot function in the PRESENCE of chaos, and that a properly functioning democratic government is ill-equipped to resolve a situation of anarchy.

And this is the case in terms of organized religions, especially protestants and muslims. What we have here is a sort of doctrinal chaos where anyone from anywhere can write their own interpretation of the law and make it legally binding on a small group of followers. Without a strong central authority to overrule them, who's going to stop them? The only one they would possibly listen to is God, who doesn't talk to anyone and basically isn't real; the only human authorities, they reject as illegitimate and go their own way.

An organized religion of the people, by the people and for the people--so to speak--can only be realized when the ENVIRONMENT of the people is relatively orderly and reason is allowed to prevail. You remove central authority in the middle of a war zone, the first thing you should expect is rampant sectarianism and balkanization.

um, OK, too many things just plain wrong here to address at once. It is definitely easier to assure the "benevolence" of a constitutional democracy, or democratic republic than it is to assure the "benevolence" of a dictator.


hint: it has to do with checks and balances. You don't want to concentrate lots of power in one person. The more the power, the greater the possibility for that power to be corrupting.

 

[OwN]

It will be interesting to see multiple faiths, politics and world issues come to grips with the existence of extraterrestrials i think. I doubt itll be in my lifetime but the changes that would have to be made in peoples ways of thinking would be astronomical.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Avatar--Nice job providing a totally unsourced quote perpetuating exactly the myth I cited and making it look as if it came from the Wikipedia article I provided that debunks exactly that idea.

Regarding Christianity and Islam--even a very high-level analysis reveals major differences on a number of theological points despite the basic agreement on monotheism and the shared pre-Christian material. Even the way the two religions regard the way God interacts with humanity is different at its core. To a Muslim, for instance, the central assertion of Christianity (that God became man and lived among us) constitutes the sin of shirk. (Not to be confused with the English word "to shirk"...this is an Arabic word with its own meaning.) Even the most upper-level review of both religions reveals that your argument simply doesn't hold water.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Let's face it, as a matter of historical truth, NO political system is more effective at maintaining public order than an autocratic police state.

Historical truth? Not even close.
History has been full of dictatorships - starting with monarchies and continuing with any type of autocratic regime known to man.
The results - grotesque policies (up to and including oppression and war), succession crisis, civil wars, etc, etc. Again and again.
That's supposed to be stability? Public order?

Civil wars result when the local autocrat LOOSES control and competing interests rush in to fill the power vacuum. Likewise grotesque policies--up to and including oppression and war--can and do result in the preservation of public order for the regime in question. In much the same way a man holding an AK-47 will be able to get a roomful of people to do some pretty complicated things without much complaint.

While democracy is always preferable to autocracy, dictatorship is likewise preferable to anarchy. It's only in the best case scenario--the American Revolution, for example--that the people actually have a choice between dictatorship and democracy on their own merits. That this best case scenario is a relatively rare occurrence is one of the reasons why popular revolutions are so difficult to pull off successfully.

The democracies have proven to be remarkably stable by comparison to autocracies

That's because democracies that DEVOLVE into autocracies cease to be called democracies. It's a little like saying "All human beings are alive... unless you kill them."

And largely lacking the large social movements - usually ending in bloodshed - that frequently characterised autocracies.

Social movements do not characterize autocracies as such, but mainly the opposition to them. A "movement" directed by an authority figure isn't a movement so much as a dictatorial government policy. Again, the problem of benevolence is such a huge one that these policies usually cause a tremendous amount of suffering for the population at large. The one thing they RARELY cause is a breakdown in public order.

And again keep in mind this was raised in comparison to organized religions. It is UNDENIABLY the case that the decentralized religious sects are the more chaotic and vastly more likely to spawn fundamentalist/extremist cliques that answer to no one and can be restrained by nothing. This is NOT preferable to a centralized doctrine that can be imposed on all others by a religious hierarchy.

Whenever the 'benevolent dictator' ideea was tried - it ended either in the country turning into a democracy or regresssing to the dictatorhip standard.

Correct. Because the few times said dictator actually HAD any benevolent intentions for his country, he eventually gave up the reigns of power and opened up the gates for free and fair elections. When he did not, he handed power over to his favorite cousin/nephew/son/lieutenant or just kept himself in power as long as he possibly could.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A democracy in name only is a democracy in name only. If for your personal categorization you'd like to call "President" Saddam Hussein a democratically elected and maintained leader...nope, can't do it. You're just wrong. An election in which every count is rigged and the candidates are murdered is not a legitimate election.

Indeed, it's an illegitimate election. Which does not change the fact that it is, you know, an ELECTION, which is a feature of a democratic government, not of a monarchy, not of an autocracy, not of a plutocracy, not of a meritocracy.

You can't conflate the DEFINITION of a thing and the CONDITION of a thing; to do so would imply that democracy is only democracy when it's implemented perfectly. That just isn't the case. If I take your car, rip out the engine, smash the transmission, steal all four tires and your steering wheel, your car doesn't suddenly transform into a sofa. It's still a car, it's just an utterly and completely UNDRIVEABLE car.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It is definitely easier to assure the "benevolence" of a constitutional democracy, or democratic republic than it is to assure the "benevolence" of a dictator.

Not really, no. In a democracy it is easier to REMEDY a condition of impropriety on the part of the government, using checks and balances. That condition is more difficult to diagnose, however, due to the more complicated system of government involved and the requirement that all different political viewpoints and demographics must be represented by the state. A dictatorship has the advantage that you can always tell exactly what kind of government you have: you only have to look at the man in charge and see what he does and whether or not his actions have a positive or negative gain for the people. It also has the advantage of being vastly more efficient, and more effective for the most part in maintaining public order.

The ideal solution, of course, is the disposable dictator: an autocrat who is invested with both absolute power and also fitted with a self-destruct switch that can be triggered at any time by an instant (and un-jamable) unanimous vote. Technically, this is the Christian view of the universe itself: Evangelicals maintain that the material universe is basically ruled by Satan and that control can only be broken by a unanimous (or at least, overwhelming majority) vote by the balance of the human race to replace him with Jesus. Supposedly, once everyone accepts Jesus as their personal lord and savior, Satan will loose control and Jesus becomes the new grand dictator, "King of Kings" and so on and so forth. As I said, the only problem with this idea is that God isn't real and spiritually voting for him probably won't result in a cosmic regime change any time soon.

Actually, I think the telepathic "Dictator destruct circuit" will probably become available long before Jesus makes his much anticipated second coming.

 

[Paradon]

That Flat Earth thing...not exactly true...

"JUST over five hundred years ago, Christopher Columbus asked the King and Queen of Spain to fund his proposed voyage westwards round the world to reach India.​

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella asked a panel of experts to give their advice. Unfortunately the report which the panel submitted to their majesties was quite bizarre.​

It was impossible to sail round the world, they said, because one would be reaching lands where people could only walk about upside down, and such lands could therefore not exist. ``Is there anyone so foolish as to believe that there is a part of the world in which all things are topsy-turvy, where the trees grow with their branches downwards and where it rains, hails and snows upwards?''​

And as for the Western ocean, they concluded it was infinitely large and therefore unnavigable.​

To us today, this may sound quite lunatic. But at the time these people were considered authoritative and certain to be right, and Columbus was lucky that someone in the government overruled them and gave him his money. These experts were, in the words of Columbus's biographer Washington Irving, "men of consummate erudition who were the greatest luminaries of what has been called the golden age of ecclesiastical learning.'' They were what we would call today the representatives of "mainstream scientific opinion''"


Does this sound as an accurate view of the Earth to you?
As a fringe theory, yes, the ideea of Earth being round was around - see Eratosthenes. The same could be said about atoms, the solar system, etc.
But it was not the ideea embraced by the mainstream scientific community.

As for the statistic about scientists, considering the theological error of literalism (supposing the Bible to be a science manual, among other things), it seems to me we have a reaction against that. If you take literalism out of the mix, then there is absolutely nothing incompatible between science and faith.

This 'theological error' was present from the start - and until today - in most religions, including christianity.
​

Even today - how far are you willing to go with renouncing 'literalism'?
Are you willing to consider, for example, the bible and the qur'an as being 'metaphorical' depictions of a single faith?
Or they're too different for that?

I don't think the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Different people reading the same passage see different things. Even the same person reading the same passage again might interpret things differently.... The purpose all the major organized religions really is about how people feel towards other people and about the what's going on around them. It's a powerful metaphor..."good always trumps over evil".... It helps people stay focus when making decisions...so they are more in tune with other people's feelings and emotions. It's about compassion and doing the right things. You don't get that with just cold logic...believe me!