Religon and Philosophy......

Many want to understand how and why religion "works", as then, they can predict religous behavior and this is all important to protect against behaviors that might endanger all of us. So, some have tried various means to understand.

One way of understanding is "belonging", where group behavior is predictable, as we are all social animals. But, group behavior can be dangerous as much as beneficial. This becomes problematic, too, when there are "free radcals" in the group that might lead the group "astray" from the "social order" to be maintained! And then, when groups become tightly identified, what happens to the "rest of society"?

Another way of understand religion is "belief". These are philosophical ways of understanding life and all that is. "God" is the beginning and end of such thinking, as it is "theological". When theology is ahistorical, people become prone to disconnect from the "real world", either through their "denial" of reality; their belief that they will change reality into some spiritualized vision; or their withdrawal from reality and the real world!

"Behavior" is really the "end" of what scientists want to understand, as behavior is "social control". Social control is needed when radical believers want to implement their vision upon society, or act in ways harmful to themselves because of such a belief. Some psychologists have believed that social conditioning is the best form of "training the human animal". But, one must understand how that must be done without co-ercive measures. That becomes problematic to a free society!

Belonging is first formed within the family of origin. A child's sense of "who he is" and where he fits in the family is an important step to furthering the child's advancement or inhibiting it.

Beliefs are also first grounded within the family of origin. These might not be formally taught as in religious communities, but are modelled by the families "way of life". These become internalized values, until the child becomes "of age" and gains his own sense or what and why he wants to own or dis-own a certain familial value.

Behaviors are the result of a person's belief system. And one's belief about themselves and the world make for how one engages the world and presents themselves.

In a free society, it becomes almost impossible to predict and control behavior at large, because individuals are free to believe differently and contingencies are numerous!

Aayan Hirshi Ali and Her Free Thought

I listened to Aayan Hirshi Ali this morning as she accepted an award from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation". She wrote "Infidel", which I read several years ago. She has been a source of inspiration in her fortitude and resistance to religious zeal and her desire to seek rationality instead of religious belonging.

Her speech used "The Emperor With No Clothes" and she talked about how those that want to "belong" at all costs will suppress their questions and unify their opinions because they fear being an "outcast" or "outsider" to the "faith".

This is correct, as humans are prone to decieve themselves and others in their attempt to provide and protect their "community". It  becomes an all out "war" of sorts because one's very identity is caught by such thinking and being in the world. Aayan embraced the questions because she valued honestly above myth. Such questioning  is doubly threatened because it puts one's personal values in question, especially if financial and family investments have a stake in such interests.

Ms. Ali escaped Islam's grasp over her life by fleeing Somalia, becomeing educated in the Netherlands, and finding a "voice in America".

Is she duped by her "reason"? Is she sabatoging another's right to "believe"? What she suggests is that rationality is to be held as a guard against religious fundamentalism, and zeal. It protects from psychological abuse that hinders one from becoming and being in the world as a free moral agent.The individual is to be set free from such "communal understandings". Belonging should be about things that do not depend on irrationality, which leaders have power to enforce at the costs of another's rational conviction and/or commitment.

America is great because it allows for freedom of religion, but doesn't demand religion as a test for public service. Character, which is of uptmost importance in public office is not dependent on one's religious affliation. In fact, religious people, as well as the irreligious, justify what they do by "rational argument". There is no justification to defrauding or manipulating because of a 'higher law" or standard, whether that standard be a religious or secular standard.  America believes that all "belong", as citizens and it is the citizen's right to be treated as equal before the law. And it is called our Constitutional right.

Justified to Dis-criminate

The religious seem to justify discrimination. As we all discriminate, because we must make judgments, what is wrong about discriminating amongst religious traditions? Because traditions all seek to understand God within their cultural reference points, we differ as to how we understand reality, God and humans. While humans seek to understand God, as the majority of humans are religious, we should not use God to discriminate.

Discrimination can be along doctrinal lines, where one must adhere to certain beliefs that are and have been traditionally held. These discriminations are the heresy trials, and witch hunts of our country's early Founding. These are understanding of what formulate the creeds. This is the "standards" of belief systems.

Discrimination can also be because one doesn't interpret a text in the right way. Infants must be baptized,; communion must be taken; children must be circumcised; one must cross their hands wile praying; these all are emphasis of undestanding tradition's texts and a reverance for God. What the sacraments mean vary according to the speicific religion and sect.

Some adhere to a wholesale theological framework, in which all of life is understood. These traditions are static and specified in such detail that if one deters from what is orthodox, one has erred and is labelled an infidel.

Discrimination is justified, becasue it affirms our own way of being and undestanding the world. We love to use God for our own purposes. God gives us a sense of power and control; a sense of purpose and a value. Our egos need God's sanction, so we form our "ingroups and our outgroups' based on these understandings and factors.

I truly understand the need to belong. It is one of the most basic of human needs. Humans need support, encouragment and companionship. Of course, some need these blessings more than others.

Justifying our belief systems and our standards of behavior is a rational activity. There is nothing wrong about this either, as all human do this consciously or unconscously. But, when we use our rational resources to maintain an 'in group" at the costs of another, we have stepped past the line for common decency and civil discourse. In our society, discrimination is about belonging to the civil discourse, and there is no justification for discrimination.

A Re-Definition of What is Valued ..

Belief is a form that is constructed by certain groups that maintain their group identity. These are groups such as faith groups, social groups, nation states, etc. Those that are the leaders within these groups formulate what is to be believed to maintain identification and social order to accomplish their particular purposes. Beliefs form laws, and are speicified by the group's values .

While beliefs form laws, these beliefs also define behavior that is appropriate within a certain group. Those who maintain the behavior that is defined as appropriate are the ones on the "inside". These people "belong". "Others" do not belong. These boundaries help to define the "self'.

"Self" is a function of the ego and those who have healthy egos are defined by no source outside of themselves, as they are defined by their own values and not group identification.

If the ego is not formed or values are not clarified, then the ego is formed by those in their particular cultural location. This frames the ego's defenses and helps the "ego" to define itself over against another ego. This maintains an "us and them" mentality. But, "us and them" mentality is healthy, in that it distinguishes between. Healthy egos do make distinctions.

I have come to the conclusion that believers base their faith on belief systems (and systems are part of the definition of "original sin"). These maintain religious identification, while those who base their faith in reason have two responses.

Those who base their reason on bahavior are agnostic. They do not want to commit to a particular definition of value, whereas, those who are atheistic base their value on reason alone. Self is defined by reason's assessment of greatest value.

Agnostics are tenuous in their commitment because their "self" has not commited one way or another. Perhaps, ego definition is needed by identifying with others in their behavior, while those whose ego is defined does not hesitate to define themselves outside of any other framework. They evaluate their commitment on "self-interest". So, conflict in self interest brings about a resolution of one's important and most valued commitments.

I think that committing to oneself in what one values most is not dismissing the other, but defining self. This is a necessary "duty", as without definition, there can be no resolution, commitment, or focus in one's life as to values.

Diversity in unity is for the functioning of society that is reasonable. While all men are created equal, there are differences that must be allowed. These distinctions are where boundaries must be maintained in valuing the best. It is ethical in focus, as it chooses between two "goods". It distinguishes and discerns. This is why it is important that leadership is not given to those who cannot be diverse in their understanding of "diversity". Otherwise, we allow absolutist to draw lines that need more nuance, subtlty, understanding etc.This is what diplomacy is about. But diplomats also have to deal with absolutists. This view of diversity in unity defines what is "true" for one's "self definition.

Unity in diversity is the view of group identification and not self identification. Unity in diversity calls for conformity to group identifiers, so that the stated purposes of leadership can be followed. This does not allow freedom of conscience, but a commitment to certain purposes already defined. This view is a functional approach to orgaizational structuring and societial functioning. This view defines what is "love" or tolerance.

Therefore, I continue to uphold our Representative Republic as the highest moral order and value for it allows the individual to choose his greatest good and greatest value within the definitions of lawful behavior. The individual pursues his own course, and not another's for his own life and as he does so, he brings value to society and understands his own values better.

Someone said on another blog site that America does not have a culture. Culture is defined by religious tradition and we do not define ourselves on religious tradition, but a freedom of conscience, that is upheld by laws. This is what the separation of Church and State is about. The State protects the individual from being accused as a criminal based on religious ideals., and yet, it protects the religious individuals freedoms, as well.

Our laws are defined by universal human ideals that protect individuality or human rights. But, "We, the People" have defined oursevles by our Constitutional government and discriminate based on citizen rights. Therefore, "We, the people" do exist apart from another nation's interests. We must maintain the distincition and stop allowing multiculturalism to play into the hands of dissolving our freedoms "as a people". The Nation State still has significance and the citizen still has rights!

Scientific Understanding and Morality

On "Exploring Our Matrix", there was a blog entry which correlated Scripture's "strong and week" to those who believe in evolutionary thinking. It was argued that using Galatians or Romans depended on which one was using the argument. But, a response in the comment section argued that arguing for or against circumcision, a religious rite, was not to be compared to the science/religion debate. The science/religion debate is based on "fact", whereas, circumcision is based on "faith".

In the context of a religious community, the science/religion argument as to the strong would stand, whereas, generally, it would not. Scripture is not to be used as a proof-text against "knowledge" in general, as the fundamentalist argue, as this would take the individual books of scripture out of original context.

Scientific understanding are based on the facts of reason and not on faith, although one can adhere to faith in reason's understanding, without upholding an allegience to reason's understanding in an absolute sense. Reason's understanding is always historically bound, because science is always enlarging our understanding and our views. We have to revise and re-formulate what and how we believe and understand. This re-formulation and revision is part of growth, intellectually and morally.

Behavior, which is based on understandings of morality, is understood within a certain context. Different denominations understand faith differently (beliefs), and therefore, behavior is understood within that context. Each denomination uses "reason" to understand and defend a specified way of "seeing". And membership in a particular denomination means that one "belongs".

In our open and free society, we understand that one's view of behavior is limited by the laws that define what is "right or wrong". These laws are "hammered out" in Congress or decided by our "Supreme Court". We are a people because we are defined by the "rule of law" and not the Divine Right of Kings.

It is first and foremost important to uphold freedom of conscience, because without it, we will limit another's freedom, which may just as well limit the basis of our society. The difficulty facing the West today is how does one uphold our liberal democratic ideals, when certain religious fundamentalists want to subvert liberty for another. Where do civil liberties end without undermining the basis of society itself?

The discussion is a two-edged sword. How do you define liberty and law?

Belonging, Belief, and Behavior "Revisited"

On Richard Beck's 'Experimental Theology" he wrote about "Third Places". I think these "third places" are what humans need in their experience of life. It is one of the basic needs of being human. It is the need to "belong". Humans are social beings.

Behavior that is inclusive is also about belonging to the "human race". This is about being and acting humanely.

Beliefs, though, can inhibit humans from crossing the divide of difference and acting in a humane way. Many times these inhumane ways of behaving is because of a person's understanding of "god". And other times, prejuidice is due to conditioning within a certain social context.

In America, we live with difference, as we live in a diverse culture, although Beck seems to think that we don't. I guess it might depend on if we have ever lived in a city, even in surburbia. Larger populations in America are almost always diverse.

Human love to categorize, generalize, and universalize. This is one way that the social sciences understand the 'human". But, while social scientists generalize, humans are also unique individuals, with personal experiences, personal values, and personal gifts that go beyond their identification to a certain specification.

Some behaviorists think that change to an individual happens because of exposure. But, this is not always the case. Research has shown that not only do some people "read" their bias and prejuidice into a situation or encounter with another different from themselves, but there is also a type of 'prejuidicial personality type.

So, while instigating behavior is an important factor in evaluating or determining research for social scientists, it is a variable that is not easily "controlled" or evaluated as to its universiality.

In postmodernity's need to find "reason", human experience is the only "universal" human category. And the category itself is very diverse in its true understanding.

Behavio (reason), Belief(tradition) or Belonging (experience)

Many have tried to define faith on belief systems, which has done nothing for bringing unity. Others have tried to define unity on practice, or behavior, but this attempt also does not affirm diversity. So, how are we to define and affirm a unity in diversity? Faith.

Faith is in belonging to the human race, which brings unity, while belonging to certain cultures, nationalities, cultures, or traditions, brings about the diverse ways in understanding one's faith. Faith can be in anything, but all of us have faith. Belonging is a matter of finding where we belong, where we agree about how we define our faith. Faith in our common humanity, which needs identification factors in norms of behavior (as defined by religion, culture, or community), will bring about the environment where we can engage in understanding our diverse understandings of faith.

Faith in reason, faith in tradition, or faith in experience will guide the discussion over what our faith means and how that meaning affects our behavior. Behavior cannot be limited to a certain definition, other than a respect and honoring of another's difference. Nor can faith be defined by a spcified understanding, as faith is about our understanding of life itself, which ultimately means we affirm ourselves and another's belonging to the human race.