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!
Showing posts with label behavior. Show all posts
Showing posts with label behavior. Show all posts
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Context Is Important to Identity
Rules/laws define and bring clarity and this is important for any society. Today, though, these rules or the laws in our Constitution are being dismissed because of higher, more alturistic goals. But, such thinking leaves little room for identification factors or for justice. Justice, in this context, means respect for the society that is defined by such rules and protection for the members/citizens of such a context. Justice is defined by protecting and upholding the "rule of law'.
Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.
On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?
What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.
I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state? And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.
So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?
Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.
On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?
What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.
I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state? And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.
So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
"Sleeping With the Enemy" Is One's "Moral Duty"?
Tonight, an old Julia Roberts movie was on, "Sleeping With the Enemy". It reminded me of what happens psychologically whenever tyranny rules over another.
The story line is of an abusive husband and his compliant wife, who eventually escapes his torture by feigning her death. The husband's compulsion for "order" in the house, and "control" of his wife is what abuse and psychological damage entails. The damage and trauma followed her to her "new life". She could not relax for fear that he would be "correcting" her, or around the corner to "discipline" her. Her fears interfered with her ability to form a close relationship to the 'new boy on the block".
Religious morality in some segments would support the wife's compliance with such "terrorism". She would learn to be submissive and learn virtue by submitting her selfishness and "self" to her husband's will.
Her husband's will was unreasonable. He demanded perfection in how the towels "matched" and were hung straight on the towel rack. The cans in the cabinet must be ordered in exact rows and she needn't think that she could have any will of her own, as he "owned" her. She could not relax, or be "herself". She must be conformed into an image that only he could imagine.
Some religious people think that such "order" is proper behavior according to their "social norm". And God is no less demanding than the husband in his "absoluteness". There is little room for liberty of conscience. But, scientists also, urge conforming to their "social image", via behavioral standards of alturism. Such behavior is considered universal morality and it is deemed by some, that Americans lack a "moral compass", or have the ability to be compassionate. "Moral discipline" is needed to rectify such unrefined views. One must submit to the standards that others have for you, for fear they will impose "discipline". Such discipline is "habit formation" where leaders determine the course for a given life. The wife responded to such demands by escaping, an attempt to survive.
Survival is a basic human need. And survival is more than physical sustenance, but psychological wholeness. Security is of necessity to psychological health. But, again, the religious believe that one should "leap in the dark" to prove one's "faith". God is the only one that can be trusted, so others don't deem it necessary to be trustworthy.
The reasons for such "demands" from the religious of the scientists, are similar to the abusive husband's. He knew how things "should be" and he was superior to his wife in wisdom. Pride was his vice, as he demanded virtue from her. The religious and the scientific can be just as vicious.
Whenever I see or hear of such abuse, it sends chills up my spine and a gut response of repulsion. No one, whether a spouse, a religious leader, a scientist, or a government should abuse the individual in such a way. It is called tyranny. And tyranny must be resisted.
The story line is of an abusive husband and his compliant wife, who eventually escapes his torture by feigning her death. The husband's compulsion for "order" in the house, and "control" of his wife is what abuse and psychological damage entails. The damage and trauma followed her to her "new life". She could not relax for fear that he would be "correcting" her, or around the corner to "discipline" her. Her fears interfered with her ability to form a close relationship to the 'new boy on the block".
Religious morality in some segments would support the wife's compliance with such "terrorism". She would learn to be submissive and learn virtue by submitting her selfishness and "self" to her husband's will.
Her husband's will was unreasonable. He demanded perfection in how the towels "matched" and were hung straight on the towel rack. The cans in the cabinet must be ordered in exact rows and she needn't think that she could have any will of her own, as he "owned" her. She could not relax, or be "herself". She must be conformed into an image that only he could imagine.
Some religious people think that such "order" is proper behavior according to their "social norm". And God is no less demanding than the husband in his "absoluteness". There is little room for liberty of conscience. But, scientists also, urge conforming to their "social image", via behavioral standards of alturism. Such behavior is considered universal morality and it is deemed by some, that Americans lack a "moral compass", or have the ability to be compassionate. "Moral discipline" is needed to rectify such unrefined views. One must submit to the standards that others have for you, for fear they will impose "discipline". Such discipline is "habit formation" where leaders determine the course for a given life. The wife responded to such demands by escaping, an attempt to survive.
Survival is a basic human need. And survival is more than physical sustenance, but psychological wholeness. Security is of necessity to psychological health. But, again, the religious believe that one should "leap in the dark" to prove one's "faith". God is the only one that can be trusted, so others don't deem it necessary to be trustworthy.
The reasons for such "demands" from the religious of the scientists, are similar to the abusive husband's. He knew how things "should be" and he was superior to his wife in wisdom. Pride was his vice, as he demanded virtue from her. The religious and the scientific can be just as vicious.
Whenever I see or hear of such abuse, it sends chills up my spine and a gut response of repulsion. No one, whether a spouse, a religious leader, a scientist, or a government should abuse the individual in such a way. It is called tyranny. And tyranny must be resisted.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Basis of America's Cultural Wars and Civility in the Public Square..
Much has been written about civility and I believe it is necessary to emphasize civility in today's culture of "war". America has always valued it's diversity, but whenever one side thinks their side speaks or should speak for all, then there are gong to be problems. "God" can be dangerous in this cause.
The evanglicalfundametalsts believe that scripture is inspired by God and that its contents are to be followed, as instructions God would "will". The presuppositions to such belief is that God is personal. God has a will that He wants everyone to know and serve. And that "He" controls and governs all of life.
Such a view cannot help but propitiate a passion that is virtually virile in what should be a rational and civil discussion about our society and its future. Whenever one believes that God's Kingdom, purpose, plan or value is absolute and that that is to be served unilaterally, one is condoning intolerance, discrimination, and "war".
Leaders of societies have used civility to "read" the pulse of the public and direct policy around those passions, so that society could remain civil without inciting "war". Such was the view of the Founders of our country. They did not believe unilaterally that God intervened directly, but that there was a order or structure that society should function 'under", which was created by our Constitution.
Today, with the knowledge that psychologists, sociologists, neurologists, and biologists are gaining about humans, it seems that our emotions also influence our thought, choices and values a lot more than previously thought. Law does not take into consideration these "unconscious" needs, values or responses/reactions. How does a civil society, such as Western culture take into account such things? Should we take into account such things? These are questions that our Founders didn't address because their culture was not filled with the diversity that we experience today. So, should we limit diversity, if it challenges the foundations of "law and order"? Human needs go beyond what is seen, but also what is "felt".
Those that are seeking a resolution to the "universal" that binds all together must look more to the human experience of tragedy or joy, because other than that, there are no similarities, it seems. And those similarities are what the "secular", as well as the "sacred" value. That is all that needs to be addressed...
The evanglicalfundametalsts believe that scripture is inspired by God and that its contents are to be followed, as instructions God would "will". The presuppositions to such belief is that God is personal. God has a will that He wants everyone to know and serve. And that "He" controls and governs all of life.
Such a view cannot help but propitiate a passion that is virtually virile in what should be a rational and civil discussion about our society and its future. Whenever one believes that God's Kingdom, purpose, plan or value is absolute and that that is to be served unilaterally, one is condoning intolerance, discrimination, and "war".
Leaders of societies have used civility to "read" the pulse of the public and direct policy around those passions, so that society could remain civil without inciting "war". Such was the view of the Founders of our country. They did not believe unilaterally that God intervened directly, but that there was a order or structure that society should function 'under", which was created by our Constitution.
Today, with the knowledge that psychologists, sociologists, neurologists, and biologists are gaining about humans, it seems that our emotions also influence our thought, choices and values a lot more than previously thought. Law does not take into consideration these "unconscious" needs, values or responses/reactions. How does a civil society, such as Western culture take into account such things? Should we take into account such things? These are questions that our Founders didn't address because their culture was not filled with the diversity that we experience today. So, should we limit diversity, if it challenges the foundations of "law and order"? Human needs go beyond what is seen, but also what is "felt".
Those that are seeking a resolution to the "universal" that binds all together must look more to the human experience of tragedy or joy, because other than that, there are no similarities, it seems. And those similarities are what the "secular", as well as the "sacred" value. That is all that needs to be addressed...
Monday, December 28, 2009
In Light of the Comments
In light of the comments, I want to write about sectarianism.
Sectarianism is a focus on specific or special forms of identification factors. Universalism, on the other hand, is a focus on a generalized or common trait.
Sectarians separate themselves due to offense to specified behaviors or beliefs that they think are heretical. Sectarians separate to maintain their identity and define themselves as "special" or "set apart" or "holy". But, they limit their understanding of themselves in real ways and in real terms of a human being. Thus, labels are good for defining these behaviors or beliefs and creating a "false sense" of protection and distance from "evil" and "the world".
Sectarians define things in black and white terms. They do not like or think in bridging the gaps, thinking in shades of grey, because they fear stepping over a forbidden boundary. These are religious ways of understanding oneself and can be damning in developing a self identity.
What sectarians don't know is that all boundaries are made by men, even when they are in texts or define the boundaries of a culture. Cultrues are defined by social norms, and values. The "human" way of looking at things is to identify with another as a "person", a human being. Then, relationship is more about mutual commonality, than in differences.
Sectarianism is a focus on specific or special forms of identification factors. Universalism, on the other hand, is a focus on a generalized or common trait.
Sectarians separate themselves due to offense to specified behaviors or beliefs that they think are heretical. Sectarians separate to maintain their identity and define themselves as "special" or "set apart" or "holy". But, they limit their understanding of themselves in real ways and in real terms of a human being. Thus, labels are good for defining these behaviors or beliefs and creating a "false sense" of protection and distance from "evil" and "the world".
Sectarians define things in black and white terms. They do not like or think in bridging the gaps, thinking in shades of grey, because they fear stepping over a forbidden boundary. These are religious ways of understanding oneself and can be damning in developing a self identity.
What sectarians don't know is that all boundaries are made by men, even when they are in texts or define the boundaries of a culture. Cultrues are defined by social norms, and values. The "human" way of looking at things is to identify with another as a "person", a human being. Then, relationship is more about mutual commonality, than in differences.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Embodied Minds or Minds Embodied in an Ethical Ideal
We had a speaker just recently at our university, who proposed that we were what we DO, first and foremost. Intention or action is all that matters. Minds are not formative of behavior, but behavior of mind.
I don't want to suggest that I have full academic understanding of this subject, but I do have experience and some knowledge of the question.
Does doing what is in opposition to reason appropriate? Does irrationality breed good behavior? Do we become what we do? Aristotle believed we do become through habit formation.
Although habits can be good or bad, don't we first choose which habits we want to be a part of our life in our behavior? And don't we choose these behaviors for reasons? If I want to loose weight, there are certain behaviors that are necessary. And these behaviors are chosen because I know I am overweight and it is bad for my health.
This particular speaker said that as a faith community ritual was all important, as ritual bred communion and made us believers (?)! If Richard Dawkins took communion, would that affect his belief system or behavior? I thought this sounded a little off the wall, although I recognize that he was just trying to form a way to bring about a wholistic understanding of mind and body. He was thinking in opposition to a dualistic formula. But, it misses the mark, it seems to me...
In attempting to form a "more perfect union" between mind and body, he suggested behaviorism in the form of ritual. The Catholic believes that the elements of communion literally become the body and blood of Christ and that taking in the elements of Communion gives the "life" of Christ to the believer. I disagree.
Luther's view of Communion was not transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. He believed that the elements became the body of Christ when mixed with faith. Faith was the pivot point for him. The elements are not important, it is the belief of the person. Richard Dawkins taking the elements would not change his belief system or behavior. The believer must have faith first. As the Reformers believed that faith was a gift of God, then there is no way that behavior can give faith. Behavior follows belief.
Sociologists understand human behavior to be connected to identification factors. If an individual identifies with a certain group that has certain behavioral standards, then the individual is likely to conform. This is part of accepting the 'social norm" of the group. But, the group has a reason why they believe a certain behavior to be appropriate or inappropriate. Appropriate behavior is considered "moral". "Immoral" is inappropriate behavior. These are cultural norms.
America's "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are based more on ethics, where the individual can choose his "own way of life". These ideals cannot be chosen in a way that impinges on another's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without legal ramifications. We believe that individuals have rights to form their own way of life, as individuals are equal under law. This radical individualism terrorizes the religious because of their fear of anarchy or immorality, as they see an outside authority as necessary.
Character is not understood in specified belief systems, or affirmation of outside authority, but in respectful behavior. Repectful behavior is demonstrated in our tone of voice, and our way of interacting with another. So, while minds reflect our ultimate values, behavior reflects our heart.
I don't want to suggest that I have full academic understanding of this subject, but I do have experience and some knowledge of the question.
Does doing what is in opposition to reason appropriate? Does irrationality breed good behavior? Do we become what we do? Aristotle believed we do become through habit formation.
Although habits can be good or bad, don't we first choose which habits we want to be a part of our life in our behavior? And don't we choose these behaviors for reasons? If I want to loose weight, there are certain behaviors that are necessary. And these behaviors are chosen because I know I am overweight and it is bad for my health.
This particular speaker said that as a faith community ritual was all important, as ritual bred communion and made us believers (?)! If Richard Dawkins took communion, would that affect his belief system or behavior? I thought this sounded a little off the wall, although I recognize that he was just trying to form a way to bring about a wholistic understanding of mind and body. He was thinking in opposition to a dualistic formula. But, it misses the mark, it seems to me...
In attempting to form a "more perfect union" between mind and body, he suggested behaviorism in the form of ritual. The Catholic believes that the elements of communion literally become the body and blood of Christ and that taking in the elements of Communion gives the "life" of Christ to the believer. I disagree.
Luther's view of Communion was not transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. He believed that the elements became the body of Christ when mixed with faith. Faith was the pivot point for him. The elements are not important, it is the belief of the person. Richard Dawkins taking the elements would not change his belief system or behavior. The believer must have faith first. As the Reformers believed that faith was a gift of God, then there is no way that behavior can give faith. Behavior follows belief.
Sociologists understand human behavior to be connected to identification factors. If an individual identifies with a certain group that has certain behavioral standards, then the individual is likely to conform. This is part of accepting the 'social norm" of the group. But, the group has a reason why they believe a certain behavior to be appropriate or inappropriate. Appropriate behavior is considered "moral". "Immoral" is inappropriate behavior. These are cultural norms.
America's "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are based more on ethics, where the individual can choose his "own way of life". These ideals cannot be chosen in a way that impinges on another's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without legal ramifications. We believe that individuals have rights to form their own way of life, as individuals are equal under law. This radical individualism terrorizes the religious because of their fear of anarchy or immorality, as they see an outside authority as necessary.
Character is not understood in specified belief systems, or affirmation of outside authority, but in respectful behavior. Repectful behavior is demonstrated in our tone of voice, and our way of interacting with another. So, while minds reflect our ultimate values, behavior reflects our heart.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
When To Be Concerned?
This will be a more personal blog entry, so those uninterested, be forewarned.
Our grandson was born early and was hospitalized before his first year for respiratory problems. His difficulty breathing led to feeding difficulties that resulted in adnoid surgury before his second birthday. Even though he has had a "rough road" in his short lifetime, he is a very pleasant little guy and we are all blessed.
Our daughter is a nurse, so she is more aware of what his development "should" be. This has led to her concerns over his delayed development and her anxiety about his future learning ability. He will be two in November and doesn't really say much of anything. And my daughter pointed out yesterday that he doesn't stack blocks or run without falling down.
My husband and I have enjoyed both of our grandkids and have not been overly concerned for him although he is way behind his bigger sister. Is our lack of concern because we inadvertedly compared him to her and she is functioning way above the norm? Or was our lack of concern a lack of "connection", as sort of "denial"? I don't know how to gauge, but I am glad that he will be having his two year check-up in the next two months. Maybe we can get more answers from his pediatrician. I hope so for all of us.
I tell this little story to make a point. Every individual develops differently, and at their own pace. But, there is some sort of standard in which "normal" development is measured. Is this the case with moral, spiritual or emotional development? If so, when should we expect someone to behave at a post-conventional level? How do we know when someone is morally, spiritually or emotionally handicapped? Do we make the allowances for these people and how do we do so without intruding upon another's "space", patience, and 'peace"?
It seems to me that many conservative religious people are caught up in the "own world", which is separated from the 'real world'. And it leads to much "disgrace" to the religious community. Is this because of "emotional need", "moral immaturity", or "spiritual failure"? I think that there is much that would collaborate that some never develop beyond an "pre-conventional level". Should we be concerned or let these people function in their "little worlds"?
This morning our pastor preached a sermon on "Abraham"'s faith. I checked with my husband to make sure he heard the same and he confirmed what I had understood. Our pastor was calling for a "radicalized faith" that was disrespective of reason, a "jump in the dark". He wanted to encourage people to leave their comfort zones, whether homes, family, etc. to "follow God". He used Hebrews 11, as his text. He promised that those who did would find "greatness". Greatness was not celebrity or fame, but gravity in impacting the world. I cringed because it literalizes a specific understanding of "faith" and it also suggests that faith is most "faithful" when it disregards reason. This view dismisses "reason's" reasons.
None of us want to be "wrong" or be responsible for bringing heartache or damage upon another. This is what our daughter is dealing with in feeling responsble for her son's learning difficulties. When was she to be concerned enough to demand attention, when several attempts were re-buffed by professionals? Should she have demanded irregardless of these professional opinions? Would it have made a difference?
What about our pastor's suggestion about faith? Isn't it cultish to suggest especially to young people to "trust" God and to disregard reason altogether? Should a parent be concerned if a student decides that God has called him to quit school and "do something for God"? Isn't suggesting that this kind of "call" is something that is "more" or "above" another's "common job"? I think this is dangerous and I am concerned. Should I be? Our pastor made a point that Abraham had lied, cheated, and stolen, but he did follow God.
Responsible behavior should be what every young adult increasing demonstrates in his life. Irresponsibilty in the "name of God" has brought much reproach upon Christian faith, the Church, and religion, in general. And I have found that when I have expressed concerns about "radicalized faith" in the past, the "professionals" disregarded my quesitons, as well. Were they being as presumptuous as my grandson's doctors? Will my faith in "faith communities" forever be damaged because of this "oversight"?
All I know is that really listening and hearing others is always hard. But, it is impossible if we have other agendas, like who is next on my appointment book, or minimizing another's situation with platitudes of "better days" ahead. We just never know when our concern will make a powerful difference in another's life. A lack of concern certainly has impacted my daughter, my grandson, and myself.
Our grandson was born early and was hospitalized before his first year for respiratory problems. His difficulty breathing led to feeding difficulties that resulted in adnoid surgury before his second birthday. Even though he has had a "rough road" in his short lifetime, he is a very pleasant little guy and we are all blessed.
Our daughter is a nurse, so she is more aware of what his development "should" be. This has led to her concerns over his delayed development and her anxiety about his future learning ability. He will be two in November and doesn't really say much of anything. And my daughter pointed out yesterday that he doesn't stack blocks or run without falling down.
My husband and I have enjoyed both of our grandkids and have not been overly concerned for him although he is way behind his bigger sister. Is our lack of concern because we inadvertedly compared him to her and she is functioning way above the norm? Or was our lack of concern a lack of "connection", as sort of "denial"? I don't know how to gauge, but I am glad that he will be having his two year check-up in the next two months. Maybe we can get more answers from his pediatrician. I hope so for all of us.
I tell this little story to make a point. Every individual develops differently, and at their own pace. But, there is some sort of standard in which "normal" development is measured. Is this the case with moral, spiritual or emotional development? If so, when should we expect someone to behave at a post-conventional level? How do we know when someone is morally, spiritually or emotionally handicapped? Do we make the allowances for these people and how do we do so without intruding upon another's "space", patience, and 'peace"?
It seems to me that many conservative religious people are caught up in the "own world", which is separated from the 'real world'. And it leads to much "disgrace" to the religious community. Is this because of "emotional need", "moral immaturity", or "spiritual failure"? I think that there is much that would collaborate that some never develop beyond an "pre-conventional level". Should we be concerned or let these people function in their "little worlds"?
This morning our pastor preached a sermon on "Abraham"'s faith. I checked with my husband to make sure he heard the same and he confirmed what I had understood. Our pastor was calling for a "radicalized faith" that was disrespective of reason, a "jump in the dark". He wanted to encourage people to leave their comfort zones, whether homes, family, etc. to "follow God". He used Hebrews 11, as his text. He promised that those who did would find "greatness". Greatness was not celebrity or fame, but gravity in impacting the world. I cringed because it literalizes a specific understanding of "faith" and it also suggests that faith is most "faithful" when it disregards reason. This view dismisses "reason's" reasons.
None of us want to be "wrong" or be responsible for bringing heartache or damage upon another. This is what our daughter is dealing with in feeling responsble for her son's learning difficulties. When was she to be concerned enough to demand attention, when several attempts were re-buffed by professionals? Should she have demanded irregardless of these professional opinions? Would it have made a difference?
What about our pastor's suggestion about faith? Isn't it cultish to suggest especially to young people to "trust" God and to disregard reason altogether? Should a parent be concerned if a student decides that God has called him to quit school and "do something for God"? Isn't suggesting that this kind of "call" is something that is "more" or "above" another's "common job"? I think this is dangerous and I am concerned. Should I be? Our pastor made a point that Abraham had lied, cheated, and stolen, but he did follow God.
Responsible behavior should be what every young adult increasing demonstrates in his life. Irresponsibilty in the "name of God" has brought much reproach upon Christian faith, the Church, and religion, in general. And I have found that when I have expressed concerns about "radicalized faith" in the past, the "professionals" disregarded my quesitons, as well. Were they being as presumptuous as my grandson's doctors? Will my faith in "faith communities" forever be damaged because of this "oversight"?
All I know is that really listening and hearing others is always hard. But, it is impossible if we have other agendas, like who is next on my appointment book, or minimizing another's situation with platitudes of "better days" ahead. We just never know when our concern will make a powerful difference in another's life. A lack of concern certainly has impacted my daughter, my grandson, and myself.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
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!
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!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Universalization and Cultural Misconceptions
Tonight we had a college student over for dinner. In talking to them about thier "intercultural requirement", she said that she would like to go to Africa. But, she was hesitant about staying in "nice" dorms as she felt it would be "wrong" to live differently than the native. As these live in abject poverty, she felt she needed to experience the same living conditions.
She went on to say that the way of the African was hospitality shown in meal sharing and that their culture is very generous in it. She said she thought that this was so admirable as it was so sacrificial. I asked her if she thought that these people would really identify their sacrifice, as a sacrifice, since this was a cultural "norm". She didn't seem to understand at first that her judgment was based on her own standard of living (the Africans would understand sacrifice as not being allowed to share their meal). After she saw my point, she acknowledged that what is deemed sacrifice is relative and sacrifice is not necessarily 'moral" or "spiritually more mature". What we value is part of our cultural heritage. She was assessing the spirituality of sacrifice with Scriptures, which are Middle Eastern "norms" of hospitality.
She went on to say that the way of the African was hospitality shown in meal sharing and that their culture is very generous in it. She said she thought that this was so admirable as it was so sacrificial. I asked her if she thought that these people would really identify their sacrifice, as a sacrifice, since this was a cultural "norm". She didn't seem to understand at first that her judgment was based on her own standard of living (the Africans would understand sacrifice as not being allowed to share their meal). After she saw my point, she acknowledged that what is deemed sacrifice is relative and sacrifice is not necessarily 'moral" or "spiritually more mature". What we value is part of our cultural heritage. She was assessing the spirituality of sacrifice with Scriptures, which are Middle Eastern "norms" of hospitality.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Social Construction, the Human, and Outcomes
Social structures are to benefit man in giving a social context. Social context makes meaning out of life. These contexts all have different authoritorial rules that make the groups distinct from one another.
Sometimes social structures can be limiting to human development. These social contexts hinder human flourishing because of their limited viewpoints, understanding, or "world". A human must leave these contexts, so that growth can occur, but it is done sometimes at great costs emotionally. These contexts are the contexts of family, religion, and culture. While family may not necessarily be a "bad" environment, the young adult cannot grow fully without coming to the full realization of "self" apart from familial identities.
Religion is also a limited view on understanding one's "self", as religion contains the ways of understanding God, which impacts ways of viewing life. Ways of viewing life are contained within cultural systems that understand history in certain ways. So, culture is also limiting to understanding a broader view of the world.
While none of the traditional roles of social construction are necessarily bad, they can hinder the fullness of development, if it confines understanding to them. Free societies allow the young adult the ability to learn and grow beyond the intial ways of life in childhood.
Some Christians would believe that this would be anathema to the "gospel" as the "gospel" is about culture, the "right" culture. Culture being the rules of dress, and specified behavior in speicific situations. There is a narrow understanding of life in its vast diversity, and even then, there is a determination to convert other "worlds" into their limited view.
These Christians understand family in ways that do not allow diverse viewpoints, as the parents are to teach what is "right" and the children do not question, but respond in obedient submission. Children in these environments have difficulty leaving their absolute understandings behind because of their enculturation at an early age.
The Muslim woman who wrote a book on her struggle to come out from under the brain washing of her culture within her family talks about this. Even after being educated at a European university, and having a career in government, she struggles with what was engrained on her memory. Cults of all kinds work this way, as they are mind-control ways of social control. These cults have many ways of shaming and controlling their subjects. These subjects are not allowed freedom of expression because the heirarchal leadership hold the reigns of power concerning "rule-breaking". Humans have a herd mentality, for the most part.
Our country seeks to free countries who have repressive regimes, because individuals within these countries suffer. Suffering is not a virtue in American society. Suffering is considered a hinderance to a free person, because suffering means subversion of independence in self-governance.
Self=governance is only useful when character has been formed where the young person has come to understand that his life is one among many. That his convictions, while valid, are considerate of another's different convictions. Free societies can only survive if citizens understand their duty to the nations' "good". The military trains and teaches these concepts of duty, honor and country. The respect for truth telling is evident in West Point's motto, of non-tolerance to those who lie. The military system of respect for authority is one born out of a realization of our country's values that depend upon it. Freedom is not won without sacrifice.
Evil must be resisted, as evil does not quietly die, is not done away with education, or undermined by diplomacy. Evil is determined to subvert, intentional in its goals, and disregarding and disrespectful of anyone who gets in the way. Evil breeds deception, suffering, and intolerance. Evil must be stopped.
So, while social structures are natural means useful for human flourishing, they may hinder human flourishing due to "outcome based" goals that are deterministic, which hinder individual freedom and choice. Outcomes are the goals that subvert independence, and creativity, because they are specified beforehand. Parents who choose their children's vocations, hindering their child's self-determination, get in the way of the child's development. Evil subverts like that and it must be resisted.
Sometimes social structures can be limiting to human development. These social contexts hinder human flourishing because of their limited viewpoints, understanding, or "world". A human must leave these contexts, so that growth can occur, but it is done sometimes at great costs emotionally. These contexts are the contexts of family, religion, and culture. While family may not necessarily be a "bad" environment, the young adult cannot grow fully without coming to the full realization of "self" apart from familial identities.
Religion is also a limited view on understanding one's "self", as religion contains the ways of understanding God, which impacts ways of viewing life. Ways of viewing life are contained within cultural systems that understand history in certain ways. So, culture is also limiting to understanding a broader view of the world.
While none of the traditional roles of social construction are necessarily bad, they can hinder the fullness of development, if it confines understanding to them. Free societies allow the young adult the ability to learn and grow beyond the intial ways of life in childhood.
Some Christians would believe that this would be anathema to the "gospel" as the "gospel" is about culture, the "right" culture. Culture being the rules of dress, and specified behavior in speicific situations. There is a narrow understanding of life in its vast diversity, and even then, there is a determination to convert other "worlds" into their limited view.
These Christians understand family in ways that do not allow diverse viewpoints, as the parents are to teach what is "right" and the children do not question, but respond in obedient submission. Children in these environments have difficulty leaving their absolute understandings behind because of their enculturation at an early age.
The Muslim woman who wrote a book on her struggle to come out from under the brain washing of her culture within her family talks about this. Even after being educated at a European university, and having a career in government, she struggles with what was engrained on her memory. Cults of all kinds work this way, as they are mind-control ways of social control. These cults have many ways of shaming and controlling their subjects. These subjects are not allowed freedom of expression because the heirarchal leadership hold the reigns of power concerning "rule-breaking". Humans have a herd mentality, for the most part.
Our country seeks to free countries who have repressive regimes, because individuals within these countries suffer. Suffering is not a virtue in American society. Suffering is considered a hinderance to a free person, because suffering means subversion of independence in self-governance.
Self=governance is only useful when character has been formed where the young person has come to understand that his life is one among many. That his convictions, while valid, are considerate of another's different convictions. Free societies can only survive if citizens understand their duty to the nations' "good". The military trains and teaches these concepts of duty, honor and country. The respect for truth telling is evident in West Point's motto, of non-tolerance to those who lie. The military system of respect for authority is one born out of a realization of our country's values that depend upon it. Freedom is not won without sacrifice.
Evil must be resisted, as evil does not quietly die, is not done away with education, or undermined by diplomacy. Evil is determined to subvert, intentional in its goals, and disregarding and disrespectful of anyone who gets in the way. Evil breeds deception, suffering, and intolerance. Evil must be stopped.
So, while social structures are natural means useful for human flourishing, they may hinder human flourishing due to "outcome based" goals that are deterministic, which hinder individual freedom and choice. Outcomes are the goals that subvert independence, and creativity, because they are specified beforehand. Parents who choose their children's vocations, hindering their child's self-determination, get in the way of the child's development. Evil subverts like that and it must be resisted.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Unified Diversity
With all of the discussion over whether a text is "special revelation", or by what means is a particular denomination to understand faith and how that plays out in orthopraxy, it seems that there should be a loud and clear call for a "peace treaty" on absolute truth claims.
Battle scars are many where there is an absolute claim on truth. Humans suffer in many ways because we justify actions based on our own limited understanding of what constitutes right behavior.We all have personal values and convictions on what is right or wrong, but sometimes we hold these convictions with little or no reflection. When there is little of no reflection on things that matter or should matter most, which are the ideals we live by, there is limitation on life itself. Socrates said "An unexamined life, is not worth living".
What would it be like to live in a world that let everyone seek their own life, with no interference? If one could pursue interests that were the "ideals" one valued? And everyone left others alone that differed? The world, yes, would be compartmentalized by many "differences", but wouldn't that breed a culture of acceptance and value of difference? And wouldn't it reflect a larger view of "truth" and breed a culture of understanding? Living in unified diversity is what I would call "heaven", as each would "be" and "do" as he understood to be of importance and of value. Then, peace would abound and no one would have a privy or right to jusitfy "speical priviledge" or "special rights", as everyone would be equally respected under "law".
I think this is the "ideal" of our American government. While fundamentalists of all kinds feel it their duty, to warn, rebuke, correct, and convert, I think a more healthy attitude toward self and neighbor is seeking understanding dialogue. Most religions, though, are based on a limited understanding of life and the values of the "transcendent" over-ride one's duty toward others and real life in this world. Is religion dangerous? I am beginning to think so.
Battle scars are many where there is an absolute claim on truth. Humans suffer in many ways because we justify actions based on our own limited understanding of what constitutes right behavior.We all have personal values and convictions on what is right or wrong, but sometimes we hold these convictions with little or no reflection. When there is little of no reflection on things that matter or should matter most, which are the ideals we live by, there is limitation on life itself. Socrates said "An unexamined life, is not worth living".
What would it be like to live in a world that let everyone seek their own life, with no interference? If one could pursue interests that were the "ideals" one valued? And everyone left others alone that differed? The world, yes, would be compartmentalized by many "differences", but wouldn't that breed a culture of acceptance and value of difference? And wouldn't it reflect a larger view of "truth" and breed a culture of understanding? Living in unified diversity is what I would call "heaven", as each would "be" and "do" as he understood to be of importance and of value. Then, peace would abound and no one would have a privy or right to jusitfy "speical priviledge" or "special rights", as everyone would be equally respected under "law".
I think this is the "ideal" of our American government. While fundamentalists of all kinds feel it their duty, to warn, rebuke, correct, and convert, I think a more healthy attitude toward self and neighbor is seeking understanding dialogue. Most religions, though, are based on a limited understanding of life and the values of the "transcendent" over-ride one's duty toward others and real life in this world. Is religion dangerous? I am beginning to think so.
Monday, January 12, 2009
New Information on Happiness and How Life and Liberty Intersect
Today, in my e-mail, it was reported in The Happiness Journal that doing volunteer work, alturistic service, etc. made children happier than organized religion, such as prayer, attending church, etc.. Although the e-mail was not detailed, I wondered how they assessed their "subjects". And I wondered if this was the wisdom of the "kingdom of God" that Jesus spoke about...
Is spirituality the utmost goal of a human being? Or is ethical formation in one's duties and responsibilities? One is based on a transcendent Being superintending life and the circumstances of life, while the other view understands man's duty to man, without regard to the supernatural.
The question for me concerning the spiritual aspect is; Is spirituality based on "feeling" rather than organized religion being based on reason? Psychologists deal with personality, as well as behavior. So, my question would be why would a ENFP be understood as "childish" in their spirituality, while a "ISTJ" would be understood as reasonable?
Some years ago I took a personality test and asked the counselor if the results would be skewed because of life events or stressors. She agreed that they could. And it has proven to be true, as my personality type "changed". I have always wondered about their validity anyway.
On the behavior side, was habit formation, such as Kant's duty bound ethics, and the categorical imperative a variable in assessing children? As this would be understood to be discipline for the training of children and in opposition to spirituality? Or is the universal beyond the childish imagination?
And in regards to children and adults, wouldn't an adult have their values clarified enought to decide for themselves what they would be committed to...Does duty come before desire, or is desire something that should be trained and honed? I think duty is religion's law, whereas, desire is art's hope or vision of life purpose.
Again, motivation is also an element to consider when addressing the behavior of subjects. What motivates one person to respond to a need, and another not? What worldviews benefit man's responsible nature, or is there a nature that needs to be trained toward responsiblity? Whether there is an innate responsible nature or not, what hinders or distorts it's development?
All these questions interface the moral, ethical, psychological, spiritual realms that intersect man made in God's image! I don't know the answers, does anyone else?
Is spirituality the utmost goal of a human being? Or is ethical formation in one's duties and responsibilities? One is based on a transcendent Being superintending life and the circumstances of life, while the other view understands man's duty to man, without regard to the supernatural.
The question for me concerning the spiritual aspect is; Is spirituality based on "feeling" rather than organized religion being based on reason? Psychologists deal with personality, as well as behavior. So, my question would be why would a ENFP be understood as "childish" in their spirituality, while a "ISTJ" would be understood as reasonable?
Some years ago I took a personality test and asked the counselor if the results would be skewed because of life events or stressors. She agreed that they could. And it has proven to be true, as my personality type "changed". I have always wondered about their validity anyway.
On the behavior side, was habit formation, such as Kant's duty bound ethics, and the categorical imperative a variable in assessing children? As this would be understood to be discipline for the training of children and in opposition to spirituality? Or is the universal beyond the childish imagination?
And in regards to children and adults, wouldn't an adult have their values clarified enought to decide for themselves what they would be committed to...Does duty come before desire, or is desire something that should be trained and honed? I think duty is religion's law, whereas, desire is art's hope or vision of life purpose.
Again, motivation is also an element to consider when addressing the behavior of subjects. What motivates one person to respond to a need, and another not? What worldviews benefit man's responsible nature, or is there a nature that needs to be trained toward responsiblity? Whether there is an innate responsible nature or not, what hinders or distorts it's development?
All these questions interface the moral, ethical, psychological, spiritual realms that intersect man made in God's image! I don't know the answers, does anyone else?
Monday, December 8, 2008
Is Behavior Based on Reason, or Tradition? And Is Belief Based on Reason or Tradition?
I wrote a post a few days ago about belonging was the ideal for faith, as it affirm all people as made in God's image and affims a humanitarian view of religion. But, as my thinking has "matured" these past few days, I understand they way I categorized belief and behavior as only one way of understanding; where belief was based on tradition and behavior was based on reason.
This is true if one wants to believe that all belief systems are limited ways to understand "god" and therefore, all relgions are man's attempt to interpret "god". The history of traditions area would affirm this way of thinking.
But, can't belief also be based on reason? Reason is useful in any attempt within a particular tradition to understand "faith". This way of thinking would be affirmed by the philosophy of traditions approach.
Behavior can be viewed as cultural (tradition) or theological (reason). If one undestands the culture's tradition and the way that culture defines worship, then behavior reinforces the tradition's understanding of "truth". This way of thinking is understood by the psychology of religion approach...
So, whether one understands behavior or belief in a cultural or reasoned way, both are "ways of life", a "way of understanding" and a "cultural framework".
This is true if one wants to believe that all belief systems are limited ways to understand "god" and therefore, all relgions are man's attempt to interpret "god". The history of traditions area would affirm this way of thinking.
But, can't belief also be based on reason? Reason is useful in any attempt within a particular tradition to understand "faith". This way of thinking would be affirmed by the philosophy of traditions approach.
Behavior can be viewed as cultural (tradition) or theological (reason). If one undestands the culture's tradition and the way that culture defines worship, then behavior reinforces the tradition's understanding of "truth". This way of thinking is understood by the psychology of religion approach...
So, whether one understands behavior or belief in a cultural or reasoned way, both are "ways of life", a "way of understanding" and a "cultural framework".
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Scripture, Theology and Ethics
Christian faith has been defined by theological reflection uponScripture. Although theologians use Scripture as a guide or framework to develop their theology, theologians differ in what themes they use in Scripture to develop their theology. While some theologians develop their theology grounded in the historical realities of their time or situatededness, all theologians seek to explain God. While this has been a commendable excercise in past times, today's cultural climate challenges theology's connection to reality.
Today's cultural climates has stretched all areas of expertise because of globalization. We are no longer islands of culture separated by miles of distance, but are interacting on a large scale through economic exchange and global networking through the internet. This cultural climate is a unification of all cultures' in many areas, but it challenges how we go about allowing diversity of cultural expression.
Radical Muslims do not adhere to a tolerant attitude or behavior when it comes to difference. A lack of tolerance challenges all of us globally, if we do not learn to get along in our differences. I believe Han Kung has attempted to bring unity through a Global Ethic. I think this is a commenable goal.
While I agree that a Global ethic is necessary to affirm to bring unity, our diversity is no less important to affirm. How do we affirm difference, and yet, remained unified? Is this the challenge of civil discourse? Exclusivist claims to truth in culture is a danger in our climate of globalization. Therefore, it behooves all of us to develop our convictions and reasons for those convictions, while we engage others who differ with graciousness, openness, and tolerance.
I believe that the ideal of unity in diversity is also the American ideal. And I couldn't be happier, than to see democracy extend around the world!
Today's cultural climates has stretched all areas of expertise because of globalization. We are no longer islands of culture separated by miles of distance, but are interacting on a large scale through economic exchange and global networking through the internet. This cultural climate is a unification of all cultures' in many areas, but it challenges how we go about allowing diversity of cultural expression.
Radical Muslims do not adhere to a tolerant attitude or behavior when it comes to difference. A lack of tolerance challenges all of us globally, if we do not learn to get along in our differences. I believe Han Kung has attempted to bring unity through a Global Ethic. I think this is a commenable goal.
While I agree that a Global ethic is necessary to affirm to bring unity, our diversity is no less important to affirm. How do we affirm difference, and yet, remained unified? Is this the challenge of civil discourse? Exclusivist claims to truth in culture is a danger in our climate of globalization. Therefore, it behooves all of us to develop our convictions and reasons for those convictions, while we engage others who differ with graciousness, openness, and tolerance.
I believe that the ideal of unity in diversity is also the American ideal. And I couldn't be happier, than to see democracy extend around the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
