I don't know what made me think about these subjects today, other than some postings on 9/11 on Facebook, and thinking about liberty! What makes one's physical life, a matter of value or commitment? And what makes for a life that is worth living? I come to my conclusions after considering those that have committed suicide. What were their reasons? And what makes a life not worth living?
The first case was the Attack on America. The question was asked on FB, "Where were you and what were you doing on 9/11?". My thoughts turned to that day, that was just like any other, and the answer left me suffering the effects of the attack itself. That particular day, I was just an average person that was going about my morning routine of putting on my make-up, when I heard on the radio that there was a plane that had flown into one of the towers. Upon hearing of the accident, I started to cry, as this was how I had experienced my life, psychologically, at that point.
At the time, the announcer didn't know if it was a commercial flight and assumed it was only a private plane! But as the events started unfolding it was obvious that those that had flown the planes, as well as those that were n the burning towers, weren't valuing their lives.
What were some of the similarities and differences in these two categories of people. One was the agressor, against the "symbol of Western culture", "capitalism", while the other was just going about their daily tasks of furthering their own lives, as well as benefitting their society. One was motivated by a religious zeal that would make them fear "God's anger" and want "God's reward" for a "spirtualized kingdom". These terrorizors had separated reality from the "real world". Theirs was a spiritualized hope disconnnected from real people apart from their own religious tribe. These people were motivated by similar reasons as all people, as all humans are motivated by incentives and disincentives, as we are self-seeking creatures.
One would not intially see the simliarities in these two groups, as their cultures are so different. But, those in the burning inferno were seeking a way out of their fear of being burned alive or suffocating to death. This is a rational fear, that brought about an irrational action because of the possible pain that might have been suffered either physically or psychologically. These were suffering a real and present danger in the real physical world. Were those that jumped to their death less courageous than those that flew the plane into the Trade Towers, because they sought relief from a painful death? On the surface, the terrorists were the courageous ones.
Another group that suffers a real and present danger that impacts them long afterwards are our Armed Forces, who are experiencing suicide rates higher than at any other time. Many think that this is due to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Their "realities" in the present have been affected by their experiences. They are reactive, anxious and fearful of what they had experienced while on the battlefield! Some do not want to get help, while others continue to struggle against such "imagined realities' and overcome them. But at what point does one loose hope to overcome them?
Life is about choices. And fears breed choices that might not look rational, but are to those who suffer under such beliefs/thinking, whether religious spiritualized thinking, or past experiential thinking. Both impact what and how one views the present and interprets the future.
Was it right for those in the burning towers to jump to their death, or did they take their life in their own hands. Who is to make that judgment when they themselves are the only ones that know what they really faced? Were they to have courage in the midst of being burned alive, rather than a quick and timely death by jumping? This thinking based on real world experience.
But, real world experience is also the case for the ex-soldier, while his "reality" is not. Who is to advise him that his "stress" is only in his mind, when his mind might have been changed chemically, for all we know? Is he to be labelled fearful, because he has had these experiences that have affected him?
The religious agressor based their reality on a spiritualized "hope" that didn't care what might happen n the real world as this was not their value. They would be recompensed. This thinking cannot be challenged, as theirs is special knowledge that breeds confirmaton bias.
What makes for a rational decision? It depends on one's experience, beliefs, and fears. And each one of these categories of people had "rational reasons" for their behavior, at least according to their "Tradition", Experience, and/or Reason.
Showing posts with label tradition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tradition. Show all posts
Monday, August 22, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Difference Between the Philosophical and the Religious?
I read an interesting analysis in a comment to Ayn Rand's point of view on her web-stie, that got me thinking. Martin Buber said that religion is an I-Thou relationship, while philosophy is an I-It relationship! I still pondering this, but my first thoughts are......
Religion is not idea oriented? No, this is what theology is, philosophy "annointed" by and in the institituion of the Church. It is for the purposes of the Church.
Philosophy proper is an I-It relationship, meaning that the idea/subject itself is of interest and value, not the institution of the Church, necessarily. Philosophy serves the interests of society and individuals and is understood within certain disciplines of interests.
Therefore, philosophy is of wider and broader value to society, if one values reason. But, religion is of value and interest if one values tradition/text. Human experience is much broader than text or tradition, this is why I would commit to philosophy above religion.
Religion is not idea oriented? No, this is what theology is, philosophy "annointed" by and in the institituion of the Church. It is for the purposes of the Church.
Philosophy proper is an I-It relationship, meaning that the idea/subject itself is of interest and value, not the institution of the Church, necessarily. Philosophy serves the interests of society and individuals and is understood within certain disciplines of interests.
Therefore, philosophy is of wider and broader value to society, if one values reason. But, religion is of value and interest if one values tradition/text. Human experience is much broader than text or tradition, this is why I would commit to philosophy above religion.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Faith and The Quadralateral
As I have been thinking along the lines of what values are most important to individuals, on what basis do individuals maintain or uphold their values? This "foundation" or "beginning" is what gives definition to values.
The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.
Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?
Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.
Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.
Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.
The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?
The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.
The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.
Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?
Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.
Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.
Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.
The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?
The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Problem With "Holiness"
"Holiness" has been useful for the religious, because of their need for identification "apart from the rest of the world". Therefore, the sects continue to separate from what is "unholy" to define and refine "who they are".
The problem with "holiness" is that it distinguishes one thing from another based on some "standardization". These standards are what religion is about. Standards of behavior in how to approach God, do one's duty, dress, perform, experience, and even think, etc. Religion is a false or pretentious "form" of judgement. These judgments are "justified" by texts, traditions, and "community norms".
What is really at stake is the individual's freedom to become apart from such religious "forms". Religion imposes itself on the natural world without allowing the individual freedom to question, and come to terms with their own "way of being in the world". Democracies allow such freedom. Apart from a free society there is no individuality.
Today's world is wrought with religious zeal that finds its identity in such "faith" apart from reason. And many find themselves under domination because of false convictions that are not really theirs. This imposition is really about co-dependence and "belonging", not healthy human flourishing and development. And co-dependence is about an under-developed ego.
At least that is my "unprofessional" assessment.
The problem with "holiness" is that it distinguishes one thing from another based on some "standardization". These standards are what religion is about. Standards of behavior in how to approach God, do one's duty, dress, perform, experience, and even think, etc. Religion is a false or pretentious "form" of judgement. These judgments are "justified" by texts, traditions, and "community norms".
What is really at stake is the individual's freedom to become apart from such religious "forms". Religion imposes itself on the natural world without allowing the individual freedom to question, and come to terms with their own "way of being in the world". Democracies allow such freedom. Apart from a free society there is no individuality.
Today's world is wrought with religious zeal that finds its identity in such "faith" apart from reason. And many find themselves under domination because of false convictions that are not really theirs. This imposition is really about co-dependence and "belonging", not healthy human flourishing and development. And co-dependence is about an under-developed ego.
At least that is my "unprofessional" assessment.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Philosophy is Not Palatable to the Fundamentalist
Philosophy is how we understand or our ability to know what we know. Some think that one aspect of understanding is "all there is". But, there are many aspects of understanding and knowing about the world.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.
Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.
Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.
Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.
Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.
Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.
Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Value as a Means of Expressing the Incarnation
In thinking about how Barbu understood the integrative and disintegrative values in a democracy and how they have to be maintained "in tension", I think that the Quadralateral is a good way to analyze these values and how they are incarnated in one's life.
Scripture is a means for moral and religious value but I would think that Scripture being a defining element of the political realm would be limiting freedom of conscience, or aesthetic value. Ethics in this regard would be an undermining value to religious or moral tradition's understanding of value.
Tradition also upholds moral values, as it has been defined by the Church (or other religious authority), but Tradition also maintains religious value in social norms. Again, without reason, tradition runs rough-shod over cultural adaptation and change in regards to ethics.
Experience underlines how the individual formulates "his world" within a religious (or anti-religious), and political realm. Experience cannot be formed "outside of itself" without limiting individuality. Man's reason is useful to analyze, categorize and determine his course. So, experience does not uphold tradition or religion, as the "form" must be individually understood and embraced. But, experience does uphold aesthetic value, leaving room for individual's to "find their place" in this world. This is the ethic of human rights and personal identity.
Reason is used to understand, evaluate, and formulate, which is the scientific value of modernity. Although fragmentation has occurred within modern society because of science and rationality, isn't freedom about that very fragmentation? And isn't freedom what life is about?
Life without justice (rights) is a life that is defined by "outside sources" of religion and tradition. And this is not what modern democracies uphold or value.
And this is why our democratic Representative Republic is of ultimate value to me!
Reason upholds
Scripture is a means for moral and religious value but I would think that Scripture being a defining element of the political realm would be limiting freedom of conscience, or aesthetic value. Ethics in this regard would be an undermining value to religious or moral tradition's understanding of value.
Tradition also upholds moral values, as it has been defined by the Church (or other religious authority), but Tradition also maintains religious value in social norms. Again, without reason, tradition runs rough-shod over cultural adaptation and change in regards to ethics.
Experience underlines how the individual formulates "his world" within a religious (or anti-religious), and political realm. Experience cannot be formed "outside of itself" without limiting individuality. Man's reason is useful to analyze, categorize and determine his course. So, experience does not uphold tradition or religion, as the "form" must be individually understood and embraced. But, experience does uphold aesthetic value, leaving room for individual's to "find their place" in this world. This is the ethic of human rights and personal identity.
Reason is used to understand, evaluate, and formulate, which is the scientific value of modernity. Although fragmentation has occurred within modern society because of science and rationality, isn't freedom about that very fragmentation? And isn't freedom what life is about?
Life without justice (rights) is a life that is defined by "outside sources" of religion and tradition. And this is not what modern democracies uphold or value.
And this is why our democratic Representative Republic is of ultimate value to me!
Reason upholds
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Faith Is....
Faith can be defined by religion, but does it have to be?
Religion defines itself on doctrine, behavior, ritual, text, the Transcendent, etc. Although the religious can have faith in these religious 'convictions", faith does not have to be defined in such a way.
Everyone has faith of some kind.
The scientist has faith in the ability of reason to come to understand the physical universe. And the psychologist has faith that there is something universal about "the human".
Although faith has been defined by some as evidenced in one's life, is this necessarily so? It is only if one is presupposing that faith is in some kind of belief system.
Faith can be in life itself.
Humans create, understand and "make meaning" out of their existence, this is part of being human. The attempt to create, understand and "make meaning" out of life, is faith in "life itself".
Life in America is a "promise" of opportunity because humans are equal under law. The "ideal" of our society is tolerance. Without tolerance, life is narrowed, defined, and valued only for coforming to certain values defined by certain groups. This is why human expression is protected under law in our Bill of Rights.
Americans do not believe in "the Divine Right of Kings", because we believe that government is to protect our freedom, not provide "our definitions". The first stage of a rising dictator is limitation upon the press and providing "proper definitions" of press coverage about public interests and concern. The press in our country holds government accountable to the people, as it is to report to the people what their Representatives are thinking and legislating. America's business is the "people's business".
We are a people defined by no one tradition, as we are a "melting pot" and this was the Founder's intent in the "Establishment Clause". We are not free from religion, but free of religion.
Americans are a "free people", as we value the individual's pursuit of life and liberty.
Faith in our country's values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is enough faith for me.
Religion defines itself on doctrine, behavior, ritual, text, the Transcendent, etc. Although the religious can have faith in these religious 'convictions", faith does not have to be defined in such a way.
Everyone has faith of some kind.
The scientist has faith in the ability of reason to come to understand the physical universe. And the psychologist has faith that there is something universal about "the human".
Although faith has been defined by some as evidenced in one's life, is this necessarily so? It is only if one is presupposing that faith is in some kind of belief system.
Faith can be in life itself.
Humans create, understand and "make meaning" out of their existence, this is part of being human. The attempt to create, understand and "make meaning" out of life, is faith in "life itself".
Life in America is a "promise" of opportunity because humans are equal under law. The "ideal" of our society is tolerance. Without tolerance, life is narrowed, defined, and valued only for coforming to certain values defined by certain groups. This is why human expression is protected under law in our Bill of Rights.
Americans do not believe in "the Divine Right of Kings", because we believe that government is to protect our freedom, not provide "our definitions". The first stage of a rising dictator is limitation upon the press and providing "proper definitions" of press coverage about public interests and concern. The press in our country holds government accountable to the people, as it is to report to the people what their Representatives are thinking and legislating. America's business is the "people's business".
We are a people defined by no one tradition, as we are a "melting pot" and this was the Founder's intent in the "Establishment Clause". We are not free from religion, but free of religion.
Americans are a "free people", as we value the individual's pursuit of life and liberty.
Faith in our country's values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is enough faith for me.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Rape in the Name of Religion
Those of us in the West believe that rape is wrong. Why do we believe it is wrong?
1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity.
2.)We believe that humans are not property.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities.
1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity because we believe that there is no difference between male and female, as to "rights" of personal boundaries.
2.)We believe that humans are not to be considered another's property. We believe that humans in relationship do not give up their human rights. Relationship serves the humans involved in mutuality, not in hierarchy.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities. Humans have value in and of themselves, therefore, they must not be a means to an end.
Religion has sometimes dismissed these values in the name of "god". God sanctions authoritarianism and the use of humiliation to "break the will" of those who resist "His Will'. This is "proper discipline" and teaches or trains those resistant the "costs" of rebellion.
Discipleship means that one does not use reason, but submits to authority without question as this demonstrates a "heart focused on loving God" above "self". This behavior shows that one is surrendered to do "His Will" no matter the costs, and give up everything for the cause of "god" and "his Kingdom".
Denying self means that one does not seek one's own interest, in fact, one must annihlate "self". Self must die, so that others may live. Your life is not your own. You are a slave to "god" and are to serve "him" alone.
Virtue is required in the midst of horrendous abuse of power, as this illustrates one's trust in God, as well as affirming one's commitment "unto death" for the "cause of Christ".
This is "God rape" of the human heart and spirit. And it leaves a damaging view of "god and religion" impressed upon the brain.
1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity.
2.)We believe that humans are not property.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities.
1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity because we believe that there is no difference between male and female, as to "rights" of personal boundaries.
2.)We believe that humans are not to be considered another's property. We believe that humans in relationship do not give up their human rights. Relationship serves the humans involved in mutuality, not in hierarchy.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities. Humans have value in and of themselves, therefore, they must not be a means to an end.
Religion has sometimes dismissed these values in the name of "god". God sanctions authoritarianism and the use of humiliation to "break the will" of those who resist "His Will'. This is "proper discipline" and teaches or trains those resistant the "costs" of rebellion.
Discipleship means that one does not use reason, but submits to authority without question as this demonstrates a "heart focused on loving God" above "self". This behavior shows that one is surrendered to do "His Will" no matter the costs, and give up everything for the cause of "god" and "his Kingdom".
Denying self means that one does not seek one's own interest, in fact, one must annihlate "self". Self must die, so that others may live. Your life is not your own. You are a slave to "god" and are to serve "him" alone.
Virtue is required in the midst of horrendous abuse of power, as this illustrates one's trust in God, as well as affirming one's commitment "unto death" for the "cause of Christ".
This is "God rape" of the human heart and spirit. And it leaves a damaging view of "god and religion" impressed upon the brain.
Monday, March 9, 2009
A Movie to Chew On...in Moral and Ethical Questions
This past week-end, while in D.C., my husband and I went to a movie. There are many choices available in the D.C. area that are not available in certain regions of our country. And some of these movies never make it outside the larger cities of D.C. or New York. We enjoyed having the opportunity last year of taking advantage of this situation while in D.C. for the year.
This movie was about an illiterate German woman during WWII and her response to shame. Although the movie was a pretty common story of a relationship, estrangement, reconcilliation, and human tragedy, it's story line ran through many complex moral and ethical questions. The more my husband and I talked about it, the more ways we "saw" the diverse views of understanding the 'issues"....
This woman was "convicted" of war crimes, partly, because she was ashamed of revealing her illiteracy. While she was being tried before a jury, she struggled as she was asked about her passivity to the cries of prisoners being burned alive. Her response was one of "keeping moral order" ("There would have been chaos, if I had freed them."). The moral detachment from the reality of human suffering is one that most of us in one form or time have experienced. Even though others were just as cupable, her sentence was for life, while the others were sentenced to 4 years...
What was the moral obligation of the "friend" who knew facts that would have given her leniancy? How was his shame connected to his reticence to come forth with the information? What did he do as a result of his guilt? In the end, was the life of the woman (and "friend") "saved" from the tragedy of what "shame, humiliation, and condemnation" of thier "societial obligations" (the "moral authorities") demanded?
I find it fascinating that most often those who resist the moral authorities are at a higher level of moral development than those who allow the domination of a system. I do not support revolution for revolution's sake, but it seems that humans are "comfortable" in the "morally mundane"...
This movie was about an illiterate German woman during WWII and her response to shame. Although the movie was a pretty common story of a relationship, estrangement, reconcilliation, and human tragedy, it's story line ran through many complex moral and ethical questions. The more my husband and I talked about it, the more ways we "saw" the diverse views of understanding the 'issues"....
This woman was "convicted" of war crimes, partly, because she was ashamed of revealing her illiteracy. While she was being tried before a jury, she struggled as she was asked about her passivity to the cries of prisoners being burned alive. Her response was one of "keeping moral order" ("There would have been chaos, if I had freed them."). The moral detachment from the reality of human suffering is one that most of us in one form or time have experienced. Even though others were just as cupable, her sentence was for life, while the others were sentenced to 4 years...
What was the moral obligation of the "friend" who knew facts that would have given her leniancy? How was his shame connected to his reticence to come forth with the information? What did he do as a result of his guilt? In the end, was the life of the woman (and "friend") "saved" from the tragedy of what "shame, humiliation, and condemnation" of thier "societial obligations" (the "moral authorities") demanded?
I find it fascinating that most often those who resist the moral authorities are at a higher level of moral development than those who allow the domination of a system. I do not support revolution for revolution's sake, but it seems that humans are "comfortable" in the "morally mundane"...
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.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Science Is Religion's "Step-Child"?
Some believe that the world functions along separate lines of understanding, religion speaks for God, and science speaks to everything else. The problem of divorcing the two, is it leaves little room for religion and God. This is where the battle lines become fierce, as the exclusivist vent their fears by enforcing a "brittle" understanding of a text, or tradition. In Christian history, this is where fundamentalism was born. But, staunch stands do nothing to endear the Church in the public square.
Others would argue that "religion is science's step-child", because religion is just useful to serve other ends. Religion is to be a useful means to incorporate cooperation from the "feeble minded", who depend on religion. While dependence on religion may be true for identification, or cultural forms that help make the individual feel "at home", I think the attitude of "usefulness" is inappropriate and demeaning to others.
While I agree that tradition limits "free-thought", tradition is useful to serve the purposes of acculturation in a culture. Our American culture does not define itself on a primary religious tradition, as we believe that religion is a private matter. We affirm religious freedom and tolerance in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Just today, while talking with my hairdresser, who just became a deputy in the Episcopol Church, he informed me that the reason the Episcopol Church separated from the Anglican Church was because of the American Revolution. We were not be be subservient to a king, in our religion. This is a challenge today in the Anglican tradition, as well as other organized traditions. Where is authority and by what means are issues to be dicussed and decisions made?
Science has challenged our understanding of man and nature and we will never be finished with exploring all the avenues available in seeking undersanding of our physical world. The challenge for the religious, is to understand their faith within a scientific framework. Faith is not dependent on doctrine, or belief, or text, but on life itself. Therefore, science should not threaten the faithful, it should only challenge our minds in understanding any limitations on science. So, the call to the Church should be in ethics. Ethics brings pertinence to the Church and gives a voice in the public square.
Others would argue that "religion is science's step-child", because religion is just useful to serve other ends. Religion is to be a useful means to incorporate cooperation from the "feeble minded", who depend on religion. While dependence on religion may be true for identification, or cultural forms that help make the individual feel "at home", I think the attitude of "usefulness" is inappropriate and demeaning to others.
While I agree that tradition limits "free-thought", tradition is useful to serve the purposes of acculturation in a culture. Our American culture does not define itself on a primary religious tradition, as we believe that religion is a private matter. We affirm religious freedom and tolerance in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Just today, while talking with my hairdresser, who just became a deputy in the Episcopol Church, he informed me that the reason the Episcopol Church separated from the Anglican Church was because of the American Revolution. We were not be be subservient to a king, in our religion. This is a challenge today in the Anglican tradition, as well as other organized traditions. Where is authority and by what means are issues to be dicussed and decisions made?
Science has challenged our understanding of man and nature and we will never be finished with exploring all the avenues available in seeking undersanding of our physical world. The challenge for the religious, is to understand their faith within a scientific framework. Faith is not dependent on doctrine, or belief, or text, but on life itself. Therefore, science should not threaten the faithful, it should only challenge our minds in understanding any limitations on science. So, the call to the Church should be in ethics. Ethics brings pertinence to the Church and gives a voice in the public square.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tradition in America
In thinking about tradition, which is culture, it it necessary to understand diversity. Our culture is maintained by its laws, which describe a '"free way of life". Congress is pledged that they are not to make a law that legislates a religion. While our freedom is a value that maintains a climate that gives room for diverse views and opinions, the Church also allows this "freedom" as it is only one among many religious traditions within our nation.
Freedom, which is protected by the "rule of law", is what human rights is about, as tradition would limit freedom, because it maintains a climate of tightly defined laws that govern its "tradition". Our government is based upon free and open exchange of information and thus, does not limit a person's choice of lifestyle, while Tradition does.
So, human rights is about the freedom of the individual from oppressive governments, regimes and traditions. Some traditions believe that their rules legislate "right behavior", but breed a narrow understanding of human rights.
Human rights is about life and liberty. Each human life has value, as well as a right to exercise freedom of choice. We are a people who are governed by laws which are protective of these rights. This protects our sense of security and peace. All civilied nations interact with other nations through treaty. These treaties represent the attempt to produce peace between the parties.
In our country, civil liberties are affirmed under our government's desire to protect "all rights". Therefore, those who subvert the "rule of law" are subversive and are considered terrorists. We do not condone terrorism of any kind.
Because of our cultural diversity, we allow the individual to choose which community organizations he commits, whether religious, political, or communal. This is what we believe and this is the mantra of the American "ideal" of freedom and justice for all.
Freedom, which is protected by the "rule of law", is what human rights is about, as tradition would limit freedom, because it maintains a climate of tightly defined laws that govern its "tradition". Our government is based upon free and open exchange of information and thus, does not limit a person's choice of lifestyle, while Tradition does.
So, human rights is about the freedom of the individual from oppressive governments, regimes and traditions. Some traditions believe that their rules legislate "right behavior", but breed a narrow understanding of human rights.
Human rights is about life and liberty. Each human life has value, as well as a right to exercise freedom of choice. We are a people who are governed by laws which are protective of these rights. This protects our sense of security and peace. All civilied nations interact with other nations through treaty. These treaties represent the attempt to produce peace between the parties.
In our country, civil liberties are affirmed under our government's desire to protect "all rights". Therefore, those who subvert the "rule of law" are subversive and are considered terrorists. We do not condone terrorism of any kind.
Because of our cultural diversity, we allow the individual to choose which community organizations he commits, whether religious, political, or communal. This is what we believe and this is the mantra of the American "ideal" of freedom and justice for all.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Religious Identities, Tradition and the Authentic Self
Last night I was scrolling the T.V. channels when I came across the last bit of "talk" on CNN. One was a Jew, the other ?, but they were talking about identities and how the authentic self comes "after tradition".This understanding would fall in line with Kohlberg's assessment of moral development, as tradition is conventional morality, whereas, reason supercedes that morality with the individual's understanding of justice.
In reading about the recent situation in the Middle East, which is really a continuation of the "same old same old" insanity, I think this is a pivotal "truth". Tradition does not regard individuality as it does not base its understanding on the "rule of law" but "religious tradition". Religious tradition justifies actions by "god's will" in text, or tradition. When tradition's understandings collide, we have what we have in the Middle East.Although Israel is a state that maintains its boundaries by "law", Hamas has not respected those boundaries. It is not "right" according to our understanding of "justice" (rule of law) for Hamas to attack Israel. Is it "right" for the Palestinians to have any recourse for action because these civilians who Hamas "uses" do not have the recourse of a "stste". What does the international community do with this in seeking justice for Palestianian civilians and yet, respecting Israel's right to boundary maintenence. This the the million dollar question, as tribal identities do not die passively, and are resistant to change.In understanding what is necessary, these humans do not have the environment to develop their 'authentic selves". They are serving a tradition and the role they think tradition demands of them in obtaining the transcentdent....
In reading about the recent situation in the Middle East, which is really a continuation of the "same old same old" insanity, I think this is a pivotal "truth". Tradition does not regard individuality as it does not base its understanding on the "rule of law" but "religious tradition". Religious tradition justifies actions by "god's will" in text, or tradition. When tradition's understandings collide, we have what we have in the Middle East.Although Israel is a state that maintains its boundaries by "law", Hamas has not respected those boundaries. It is not "right" according to our understanding of "justice" (rule of law) for Hamas to attack Israel. Is it "right" for the Palestinians to have any recourse for action because these civilians who Hamas "uses" do not have the recourse of a "stste". What does the international community do with this in seeking justice for Palestianian civilians and yet, respecting Israel's right to boundary maintenence. This the the million dollar question, as tribal identities do not die passively, and are resistant to change.In understanding what is necessary, these humans do not have the environment to develop their 'authentic selves". They are serving a tradition and the role they think tradition demands of them in obtaining the transcentdent....
Religious Identities, Tradition, and "Self"
Last night I was scrolling the T.V. channels when I came across the last bit of "talk" on CNN. One was a Jew, the other ?, but they were talking about identities and how the authentic self comes "after tradition".
This would fall in line with Kohlberg's assessment of moral development, as tradition is conventional morality, whereas, reason supercedes that morality with the individual's understanding of justice.
In reading about the recent situation in the Middle East, which is really a continuation of the "same old same old" insanity, I think this is a pivotal "truth". Tradition does not regard individuality as it does not base its understanding on the "rule of law" but "religious tradition". Religious tradition justifies actions by "god's will" in text, or tradition. When tradition's understandings collide, we have what we have in the Middle East.
Although Israel is a state that maintains its boundaries by "law", Hamas has not respected those boundaries. It is not "right" according to our understanding of "justice" (rule of law) for Hamas to attack Israel. Is it "right" for the Palestinians to have any recourse for action because these civilians who Hamas "uses" do not have the recourse of a "stste". What does the international community do with this in seeking justice for Palestianian civilians and yet, respecting Israel's right to boundary maintenence. This the the million dollar question, as tribal identities do not die passively, and are resistant to change.
In understanding what is necessary, these humans do not have the environment to develop their 'authentic selves". They are serving a tradition and the role they think tradition demands of them in obtaining the transcentdent....
This would fall in line with Kohlberg's assessment of moral development, as tradition is conventional morality, whereas, reason supercedes that morality with the individual's understanding of justice.
In reading about the recent situation in the Middle East, which is really a continuation of the "same old same old" insanity, I think this is a pivotal "truth". Tradition does not regard individuality as it does not base its understanding on the "rule of law" but "religious tradition". Religious tradition justifies actions by "god's will" in text, or tradition. When tradition's understandings collide, we have what we have in the Middle East.
Although Israel is a state that maintains its boundaries by "law", Hamas has not respected those boundaries. It is not "right" according to our understanding of "justice" (rule of law) for Hamas to attack Israel. Is it "right" for the Palestinians to have any recourse for action because these civilians who Hamas "uses" do not have the recourse of a "stste". What does the international community do with this in seeking justice for Palestianian civilians and yet, respecting Israel's right to boundary maintenence. This the the million dollar question, as tribal identities do not die passively, and are resistant to change.
In understanding what is necessary, these humans do not have the environment to develop their 'authentic selves". They are serving a tradition and the role they think tradition demands of them in obtaining the transcentdent....
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Atheist, Agnostic or What?
Yesterday, I listened to Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC/Chapel Hill, speak on suffering. He had been an evangelical at one time, but is now agnostic. His views were interesting and freeing.
In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".
Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.
I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.
I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!
So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...
Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.
In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".
Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.
I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.
I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!
So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...
Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Suicide and Other Incidental Tragedies
Suicide happens in American culture more than other civilized cultures. Some may think it is due to the violent nature of our culture in video games and T.V. While I don't doubt that this influences individuals. I believe that there is a much deeper root.
My mother and I were talking yesterday about how our culture has changed. In her generation, and right up until mine, which was the Baby Boomer, people had a sense of community. Community was where you belonged. People knew each other and neighbors were, well, neighborly. But, when the 60's came along, something else transpired in American hearts. The American heart of individualism, which wrought the American spirit of independence, self-assurance, and a self-reliance brought upon its heels a Revolution of major proportions. While today's culture is known as a "death culture", the 60's was one of "sexual revolution".
Divorce was really a taboo in the 50's, but the 60's pushed the limits of the forbidden. "Free love", Woodstock, and drugs was the culture's defining "traditions". "Communal living" was the replacement for marriage and was only a bandaid in America's seeping hemmorahge in shaping tommorow's child.
The disconnection from the broader community through divorce, "free love", drugs, and a resentment to the status quo made a major impact on society. Police officiers were "pigs", because they maintained the order of our society and represented repression of "free expression". The monster of individualism as the epitome of identification was born. Society had no power over this "superman".
Children born and raised on a culture of social isolation through the disconnect of society's "communities of identification" are subject to an alienation in their souls, a broken-ness of heart and a de-valuation of life. As the children approach the transition years when stressors to identity transpires, these children have little resistance to the external challenges when their internal messages are so strong. These internal messages are messages of self-hate and self-disrespect.
These "handicapped" children struggle to maintain a sense of dignity and value in life. If their parent's marriage was not valued, then what makes them of value? Why were they born and why do they continue to live? A continual sense that they must fight to justify their very existence is a hard mountain to climb, when they should be struggling to develop their "gift and talents" and find out about the adventures in life. Depression and despondency can result leaving the child with any desire to live.
Suicide is the exclaimation point to a de-valued life. A life that had been de-valued by the social structures that were meant to maintain and bless it. Suicide, though experienced by family and friends as horrendously confusing and painful, is only an incidental result of a life that had long before been extinguished.
My mother and I were talking yesterday about how our culture has changed. In her generation, and right up until mine, which was the Baby Boomer, people had a sense of community. Community was where you belonged. People knew each other and neighbors were, well, neighborly. But, when the 60's came along, something else transpired in American hearts. The American heart of individualism, which wrought the American spirit of independence, self-assurance, and a self-reliance brought upon its heels a Revolution of major proportions. While today's culture is known as a "death culture", the 60's was one of "sexual revolution".
Divorce was really a taboo in the 50's, but the 60's pushed the limits of the forbidden. "Free love", Woodstock, and drugs was the culture's defining "traditions". "Communal living" was the replacement for marriage and was only a bandaid in America's seeping hemmorahge in shaping tommorow's child.
The disconnection from the broader community through divorce, "free love", drugs, and a resentment to the status quo made a major impact on society. Police officiers were "pigs", because they maintained the order of our society and represented repression of "free expression". The monster of individualism as the epitome of identification was born. Society had no power over this "superman".
Children born and raised on a culture of social isolation through the disconnect of society's "communities of identification" are subject to an alienation in their souls, a broken-ness of heart and a de-valuation of life. As the children approach the transition years when stressors to identity transpires, these children have little resistance to the external challenges when their internal messages are so strong. These internal messages are messages of self-hate and self-disrespect.
These "handicapped" children struggle to maintain a sense of dignity and value in life. If their parent's marriage was not valued, then what makes them of value? Why were they born and why do they continue to live? A continual sense that they must fight to justify their very existence is a hard mountain to climb, when they should be struggling to develop their "gift and talents" and find out about the adventures in life. Depression and despondency can result leaving the child with any desire to live.
Suicide is the exclaimation point to a de-valued life. A life that had been de-valued by the social structures that were meant to maintain and bless it. Suicide, though experienced by family and friends as horrendously confusing and painful, is only an incidental result of a life that had long before been extinguished.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
A New Theology from LeRon Shultz...What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?
I just read a review on Jesus Creed and some responses about LeRon Shultz's new book on theology. One point stood out to me...
No longer is theological frames of understanding to be based on "law" or reconcilliation, but on atonement...
While I like and agree with the universal aspects that his philosophizing emphasizes, I disagree with the ethical implications to his "view". Understanding atonement as community is nothing less than socialism or communism in political terms. What is problematic with this view is that community cannot ignore boundaries of the individual without de-valuing one of the most unique understandings of the Judeo/Christian faith, i.e. individuality. The person is uniquely created in God's image, as well as the community. It is the community that defines what the faith of the individual means. And the individual's commitment and identification is boundaried by that specified community....This is an emphasis on Faith...But, radicalized faith is not appropriate in today's climate of religious zeal.
While faith is necessary in faith communities and is important in understanding one's faith in a specific community and practicing faith within that community, faith does not develop Kant's understanding of the moral law. I think this is problematic, as Kant's understanding underlines what we know as character development within the individual, which is based on an anti-realist view (values clarification), which must be individually assessed. While the book of Hebrews may be viewed as an attempt to bring character development into a Christian frame of reference, it was also an attempt to conform individuals into a religious tradition...which again is not based on reason, but faith....
The Jewish Law was fulfilled by love as exemplified by Jesus life. While this is a good "model", we cannot agree with the implications of it, practically speaking....Those who took Jesus' life were not "loving" him, no matter what their reasons were...It was a power play against how he chose to live his life. His life threatened the religious...and fostered questions in the political realms. Therefore, though community is important, surely in Western society, we understand that community cannot exert power over the individual's freedom and right to worship God in the way he deems fit...Faith cannot be defined by someone else. It must be a personal commitment of heart.
No longer is theological frames of understanding to be based on "law" or reconcilliation, but on atonement...
While I like and agree with the universal aspects that his philosophizing emphasizes, I disagree with the ethical implications to his "view". Understanding atonement as community is nothing less than socialism or communism in political terms. What is problematic with this view is that community cannot ignore boundaries of the individual without de-valuing one of the most unique understandings of the Judeo/Christian faith, i.e. individuality. The person is uniquely created in God's image, as well as the community. It is the community that defines what the faith of the individual means. And the individual's commitment and identification is boundaried by that specified community....This is an emphasis on Faith...But, radicalized faith is not appropriate in today's climate of religious zeal.
While faith is necessary in faith communities and is important in understanding one's faith in a specific community and practicing faith within that community, faith does not develop Kant's understanding of the moral law. I think this is problematic, as Kant's understanding underlines what we know as character development within the individual, which is based on an anti-realist view (values clarification), which must be individually assessed. While the book of Hebrews may be viewed as an attempt to bring character development into a Christian frame of reference, it was also an attempt to conform individuals into a religious tradition...which again is not based on reason, but faith....
The Jewish Law was fulfilled by love as exemplified by Jesus life. While this is a good "model", we cannot agree with the implications of it, practically speaking....Those who took Jesus' life were not "loving" him, no matter what their reasons were...It was a power play against how he chose to live his life. His life threatened the religious...and fostered questions in the political realms. Therefore, though community is important, surely in Western society, we understand that community cannot exert power over the individual's freedom and right to worship God in the way he deems fit...Faith cannot be defined by someone else. It must be a personal commitment of heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
