Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Faith Versus Science (1)
Content Versus Method
Before discussing faith and science*, I think it's first important to understand the difference between content and method. Content refers to the truth claims someone or something makes. Method, on the other hand, refers to the way that content was created or discovered.
Typically, we use a method to discover or establish our content. We don't normally make claims about reality based on the mere ideas we have in our head. We want them grounded in something outside ourselves.
For example, if I want to write a book on the history of garden gnomes, I'll probably go through some process to formulate the truth claims I want to make or include in my book. I might identify garden gnome experts, read their books, and select the information from these books that I want to include in my book. This process constitutes my method.
In the end, the published contents of my book represent the truth claims I am making about garden gnomes.
Pretty simple, right?
Potential for Conflict
With this difference in mind, it is easier to understand the ways in which faith and science may differ. Each may offer different content and each may offer a different method of truth.
This is not to say their content and method will necessarily conflict. Rather, their content and method may compliment one another or occupy entirely separate territory.
For instance, some people argue that the content and method of science concerns only our observable world (i.e. empirical truth), while the content and method of faith concerns only the un-observable world (i.e. spiritual truth).
If this argument is true, faith and science could not possibly conflict with one another. Here, science deals with observable reality using a method suited for it, while faith deals with un-observable reality using an equally suitable method.
The Overlap
Unfortunately, the former thinking is too simple. Sometimes the content of faith and science overlap. When this happens, their methods sometimes overlap as well.
For instance, religious texts and traditions often include claims about the observable world.
Opening up any Bible will demonstrate this pretty quickly. The creation of the world and the history of ancient Israel are reported in the Old Testament; The history of Jesus and the early church are reported in the New Testament; And, finally, observational truths are found throughout the entire Bible (e.g. Proverbs 14:15).
Here, we can see that faith sometimes includes claims about our observable world. It is not restricted to the un-observable spirit world.
Real Conflict
Because of this overlap with the observable world, we have real potential for conflict between faith and science. If faith dictates a particular version of our observable reality which conflicts with what we observe or discover through science, both can't be right.
For instance, if textual scholars claim that your religious Holy Book has been clearly altered or falsified based on the observable manuscript evidence, this presents a potential conflict between science and your faith. Similarly, if archeologists say the observable evidence they discover contradicts the history presented by your faith, we again have potential conflict. Finally, if scientists claim the earth is billions of years old but your religious Holy Book explicitly or implicitly suggests otherwise, we again have potential conflict.
Resolution
Now, this is not to say these potential conflicts cannot possibly be resolved. The content of science may change or be seen in a different light. Similarly, the content of faith may change or be seen in a different light.
However we handle these conflicts, we must first admit that there is real potential for them to exist. We must also admit that some conflicts may not be resolvable if we are honest with ourselves. There is no way of knowing until it occurs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I am using the term science broadly here to refer to any method employed by professionals in a field which has widely been believed to have advanced knowledge of our observable world. In contrast, faith is often only believed by its select constituents to have advanced knowledge. Often this knowledge concerns the unobservable world.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Raising Children with Religion
It Makes Sense
I get it. Parents want the best for their children. They want to point them in the right direction and help them develop spiritually.
If parents have the responsibility to teach their children practical life lessons like the need to wash hands, eat healthy, and obey the law, surely parents also have the responsibility to give their children spiritual guidance. What could be more important than this?
Being raised in a Christian home myself, this was my perspective for a time. While my perspective has changed, I'll say on the outset that I certainly don't see anything malicious in this practice. It makes sense.
Faith is Different
Having said that, I think we can all recognize some things about faith that sets it apart from the kind of practical knowledge we pass on to our children. Faith is deeply personal, subjective, and controversial, more so than any other aspect of life.
Most of us tend to view faith as something people must choose for themselves. I think most would even say that coercing, manipulating, or forcing people to accept our faith is wrong. Attempting to do either of these might only produce a false or impersonal conversion anyway.
Contrasting this with practical knowledge, imploring people to eat healthy and even preventing them from consuming certain foods via regulation is not considered a serious breach of personal freedom. There is no "freedom of consumption" clause or concern over the "separation of food and state". For faith, there are such concerns.
While faith is deeply subjective and personal, the general prohibition against consuming rat poison is not.
On Brainwashing
With this difference between faith and common knowledge in mind, it is easier to see why some would view the act of imposing our religious views on children as a violation of something deeply personal and subjective. It can take advantage of their ignorance and malleability as they are incapable of making an informed decision themselves. We are essentially making a faith-decision for them.
Further, we wouldn't drag a complete stranger off to church twice a week, make them pray before bed, make them celebrate our religious holidays, or coerce them to read our holy book each day. However, when that stranger is our child, we feel we have some right to do this.
When it comes to our child, we no longer treat faith as something each person must choose for themselves. We no longer treat faith as something each person can only choose for themselves. Rather, we view faith as something we can impart to them and hopefully make stick for life.
But I Give My Child a Choice!
I imagine there may be parents reading this who are saying that they do not "impose" their religious views onto their child. That sounds too forceful. Rather, you merely influence, encourage, or persuade your child into making the right faith-choice for themselves.
However, let's be honest. When we ask our eight-year-old child if they want to go to heaven with mommy and daddy, be forgiven of all their bad behavior, and avoid going to hell, are we really giving them a choice? How many eight-year-old children would genuinely say no to any of that?
Children have very few options. They have very little ability or reason to doubt whatever someone tells them is true. Giving them an option between your belief in something wonderful and your belief in something horrible pretty much dictates their choice. There are no real faith options on the table. We are manipulating their personal choice in faith.
But They Can Change When They're Older!
In light of manipulating a child's faith choices, you might argue that your child can make a more personal and informed decision when they're older. So whatever you do now doesn't matter. No harm, no foul. You're merely giving them an advantage by cultivating the right conclusion in their minds while they're young.
Once again, I don't think this is a very honest argument. In the least, this isn't a very thoughtful or informed argument.
By successfully manipulating your child into carrying your religious beliefs, convictions, and fears, you're making it very difficult for them to make a personal decision on faith when they're older. You've made it part of their identity and part of what defines your family as a whole. It is emotionally binding. That is to say, the manipulation continues well after adolescence.
Not many people are comfortable distressing or disowning the family they love over religion. Not many people are comfortable losing an identity their family has cultivated in them since childhood. This would explain why hereditary religion has so much sticking power.
Viewing a map of the world by religious population and reviewing statistics on the traits of hereditary religion make it pretty clear that whatever religion you make your child believe when they're young, it generally sticks for life. Even if they fall away from it, they'll come back before converting to anything else. So, ultimately, we're still dictating the religious views of our children. There is very little choosing going on in the world when it comes to hereditary religion.
My Perspective
I don't think there's anything wrong in telling our children what we believe and why we believe it. There's also nothing wrong in telling our children why we think the rest of the world is wrong on the matter of faith.
What I do think is wrong is intentionally trying to impart our religious convictions onto our adolescent children. No matter how you do it, this takes advantage of their uncritical and malleable state of mind. I think it is also wrong to make them feel that there is only one religious identity or choice you will accept from them in life. By doing this, we're making a decision for them and giving them no real freedom in life to make a decision for themselves. It is emotionally manipulative, whether we intend it to be or not.
We don't emotionally coerce other people's choice of faith and we shouldn't do it to our children.
Instead, I think we have a responsibility to prepare our children to make a personal decision on faith when they are mature. Give them all the information and tools you think they need. Give them your personal conclusion as well. But assure them that the decision is theirs to make when they are older. Tell them you'll accept their decision as best you can but hope they accept the truth you found.
As I see it, anything less than this is manipulative and sets them up for some huge scars should they ever feel called to forge their own path later in life.
I get it. Parents want the best for their children. They want to point them in the right direction and help them develop spiritually.
If parents have the responsibility to teach their children practical life lessons like the need to wash hands, eat healthy, and obey the law, surely parents also have the responsibility to give their children spiritual guidance. What could be more important than this?
Being raised in a Christian home myself, this was my perspective for a time. While my perspective has changed, I'll say on the outset that I certainly don't see anything malicious in this practice. It makes sense.
Faith is Different
Having said that, I think we can all recognize some things about faith that sets it apart from the kind of practical knowledge we pass on to our children. Faith is deeply personal, subjective, and controversial, more so than any other aspect of life.
Most of us tend to view faith as something people must choose for themselves. I think most would even say that coercing, manipulating, or forcing people to accept our faith is wrong. Attempting to do either of these might only produce a false or impersonal conversion anyway.
Contrasting this with practical knowledge, imploring people to eat healthy and even preventing them from consuming certain foods via regulation is not considered a serious breach of personal freedom. There is no "freedom of consumption" clause or concern over the "separation of food and state". For faith, there are such concerns.
While faith is deeply subjective and personal, the general prohibition against consuming rat poison is not.
On Brainwashing
With this difference between faith and common knowledge in mind, it is easier to see why some would view the act of imposing our religious views on children as a violation of something deeply personal and subjective. It can take advantage of their ignorance and malleability as they are incapable of making an informed decision themselves. We are essentially making a faith-decision for them.
Further, we wouldn't drag a complete stranger off to church twice a week, make them pray before bed, make them celebrate our religious holidays, or coerce them to read our holy book each day. However, when that stranger is our child, we feel we have some right to do this.
When it comes to our child, we no longer treat faith as something each person must choose for themselves. We no longer treat faith as something each person can only choose for themselves. Rather, we view faith as something we can impart to them and hopefully make stick for life.
But I Give My Child a Choice!
I imagine there may be parents reading this who are saying that they do not "impose" their religious views onto their child. That sounds too forceful. Rather, you merely influence, encourage, or persuade your child into making the right faith-choice for themselves.
However, let's be honest. When we ask our eight-year-old child if they want to go to heaven with mommy and daddy, be forgiven of all their bad behavior, and avoid going to hell, are we really giving them a choice? How many eight-year-old children would genuinely say no to any of that?
Children have very few options. They have very little ability or reason to doubt whatever someone tells them is true. Giving them an option between your belief in something wonderful and your belief in something horrible pretty much dictates their choice. There are no real faith options on the table. We are manipulating their personal choice in faith.
But They Can Change When They're Older!
In light of manipulating a child's faith choices, you might argue that your child can make a more personal and informed decision when they're older. So whatever you do now doesn't matter. No harm, no foul. You're merely giving them an advantage by cultivating the right conclusion in their minds while they're young.
Once again, I don't think this is a very honest argument. In the least, this isn't a very thoughtful or informed argument.
By successfully manipulating your child into carrying your religious beliefs, convictions, and fears, you're making it very difficult for them to make a personal decision on faith when they're older. You've made it part of their identity and part of what defines your family as a whole. It is emotionally binding. That is to say, the manipulation continues well after adolescence.
Not many people are comfortable distressing or disowning the family they love over religion. Not many people are comfortable losing an identity their family has cultivated in them since childhood. This would explain why hereditary religion has so much sticking power.
Viewing a map of the world by religious population and reviewing statistics on the traits of hereditary religion make it pretty clear that whatever religion you make your child believe when they're young, it generally sticks for life. Even if they fall away from it, they'll come back before converting to anything else. So, ultimately, we're still dictating the religious views of our children. There is very little choosing going on in the world when it comes to hereditary religion.
My Perspective
I don't think there's anything wrong in telling our children what we believe and why we believe it. There's also nothing wrong in telling our children why we think the rest of the world is wrong on the matter of faith.
What I do think is wrong is intentionally trying to impart our religious convictions onto our adolescent children. No matter how you do it, this takes advantage of their uncritical and malleable state of mind. I think it is also wrong to make them feel that there is only one religious identity or choice you will accept from them in life. By doing this, we're making a decision for them and giving them no real freedom in life to make a decision for themselves. It is emotionally manipulative, whether we intend it to be or not.
We don't emotionally coerce other people's choice of faith and we shouldn't do it to our children.
Instead, I think we have a responsibility to prepare our children to make a personal decision on faith when they are mature. Give them all the information and tools you think they need. Give them your personal conclusion as well. But assure them that the decision is theirs to make when they are older. Tell them you'll accept their decision as best you can but hope they accept the truth you found.
As I see it, anything less than this is manipulative and sets them up for some huge scars should they ever feel called to forge their own path later in life.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Life as an Extreme Introvert (1)
Big Picture
Introverts can be pretty weird. I can attest to that first hand (and I'm not proud of it). We just don't fit in with our largely extroverted society. Our interests and social skills are typically narrower, often causing a range of both apparent and very real problems when interacting with others.
But naming any particular introverted qualities might be painting with a broad brush. There are a number of characteristics which could be associated with introversion and each would come in degrees. There are, however, a few characteristics typically named which give people a rough idea as to which direction we lean. The highlights typically include:
1. Small talk is stressful for us
2. We write better than we talk
3. We're easily distracted
4. Details are very important to us
5. We have a few select interests in life
6. We choose stability over adventure
7. We prefer a few close friends to many acquaintances
8. Crowds either make us feel lonely or overwhelmed
9. Our lack of socializing is mistaken for depression or a lack of confidence
Disabilities, Strengths, and Challenges
Some view introversion as a disability. Others see strengths in it. I imagine it's a bit of both. Our inability to freely and rapidly interact with the world on many fronts cause us to focus our attention on a few select areas in life where we hone our skills. And because we cannot find happiness in rapid changes of scenery, we look for happiness in things which are more stable.
The challenge for us introverts is in coming to accept that we'll never be the person we might want to be. The more aware we become of our limitations and the more aware we become of how much adventure passes us by, the more difficult it can be to accept the direction we're headed in life. We can feel overwhelmingly isolated and disappointed as we watch the world go by without us. If we're not fortunate enough to have people in our life who understand and value our uniqueness, depression can be a way of life.
Of course, we might also be fortunate enough not to notice our differences or care much at all. I certainly know some who are blessed with this sweet ignorance.
Small Picture
I write all this with a twinge of pain. It took me years to realize the extent of my introversion and, in some ways, I wish I'd never known. My ideal self and my actual self are universes apart. I've never been able to accept this.
As a result of my particular characteristics, I've had to let virtually every relationship in my life die a slow, natural death. I've had to avoid people as much as possible. It was too painful being reminded of what I was and it was too painful to watch myself systematically derail otherwise normal interactions with people. A relationship was nothing more than something for me to probably screw up. The concentration and effort alone it took to survive small talk without making a stupid mistake was almost unbearable.
Now, I don't mean to play the tiny violin here. I just think some should know what introversion can be like –at least in my case. I think back on all the friendships I lost and imagine they never understood why I couldn't or wouldn't reciprocate. It wasn't because I didn't like them. It was because I was afraid of screwing up. The effort and commitment involved was high, and it often ended in disappointment no matter how hard I tried.
There are other factors involved, but this "fear of commitment" is a big one. And not to end on such a low note, I certainly haven't given up on relationships. It's a work in progress. People are great, introversion is sometimes not.
Introverts can be pretty weird. I can attest to that first hand (and I'm not proud of it). We just don't fit in with our largely extroverted society. Our interests and social skills are typically narrower, often causing a range of both apparent and very real problems when interacting with others.
But naming any particular introverted qualities might be painting with a broad brush. There are a number of characteristics which could be associated with introversion and each would come in degrees. There are, however, a few characteristics typically named which give people a rough idea as to which direction we lean. The highlights typically include:
1. Small talk is stressful for us
2. We write better than we talk
3. We're easily distracted
4. Details are very important to us
5. We have a few select interests in life
6. We choose stability over adventure
7. We prefer a few close friends to many acquaintances
8. Crowds either make us feel lonely or overwhelmed
9. Our lack of socializing is mistaken for depression or a lack of confidence
Disabilities, Strengths, and Challenges
Some view introversion as a disability. Others see strengths in it. I imagine it's a bit of both. Our inability to freely and rapidly interact with the world on many fronts cause us to focus our attention on a few select areas in life where we hone our skills. And because we cannot find happiness in rapid changes of scenery, we look for happiness in things which are more stable.
The challenge for us introverts is in coming to accept that we'll never be the person we might want to be. The more aware we become of our limitations and the more aware we become of how much adventure passes us by, the more difficult it can be to accept the direction we're headed in life. We can feel overwhelmingly isolated and disappointed as we watch the world go by without us. If we're not fortunate enough to have people in our life who understand and value our uniqueness, depression can be a way of life.
Of course, we might also be fortunate enough not to notice our differences or care much at all. I certainly know some who are blessed with this sweet ignorance.
Small Picture
I write all this with a twinge of pain. It took me years to realize the extent of my introversion and, in some ways, I wish I'd never known. My ideal self and my actual self are universes apart. I've never been able to accept this.
As a result of my particular characteristics, I've had to let virtually every relationship in my life die a slow, natural death. I've had to avoid people as much as possible. It was too painful being reminded of what I was and it was too painful to watch myself systematically derail otherwise normal interactions with people. A relationship was nothing more than something for me to probably screw up. The concentration and effort alone it took to survive small talk without making a stupid mistake was almost unbearable.
Now, I don't mean to play the tiny violin here. I just think some should know what introversion can be like –at least in my case. I think back on all the friendships I lost and imagine they never understood why I couldn't or wouldn't reciprocate. It wasn't because I didn't like them. It was because I was afraid of screwing up. The effort and commitment involved was high, and it often ended in disappointment no matter how hard I tried.
There are other factors involved, but this "fear of commitment" is a big one. And not to end on such a low note, I certainly haven't given up on relationships. It's a work in progress. People are great, introversion is sometimes not.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Why I Write
Priority Number 1
I don't consider the things I write about to be anything new or groundbreaking. Nor do I offer fresh perspectives or nuanced opinions. That isn't my goal. I think we're already immersed enough with new ideas, controversies, and events. We'll never be short on these.
What I think we lack most is clarity on a fundamental level. We lack a basic understanding of the issues. We also lack an interest in intellectual growth.
Too many of us think we have it all figured out and too many of us oversimplify the issues. We have very little incentive to reevaluate our convictions and make room for growth. As a result, the gap between laity and scholarship continues to widen and opposing extremes continue to develop between us.
Alarmist Thinking
From my perspective, if we don't make an effort to bridge this gap, we can only look forward to more societal dissonance and frustration. Our future will be filled with more pious dogmatism from both sides clogging up the system and making cooperation impossible.
While scholarship is busy advancing society behind closed doors, I don't believe their ivory towers can withstand the force of an angry mob. It only takes one event to trigger panic, causing doors to slam shut on progress. I think we've seen this happen numerous times. It's happening right now.
While many trust society to slowly advance forward despite all the kicking and screaming in between, it's not something I'm willing to gamble on. Will we ultimately overcome our fear, apathy, and selfishness? Or will the pendulum of human progress continue to swing back and forth, only on more advanced platforms?
Further, how much time do have left to get our shit together? Does the forecast predict clear skies and sustainability for the next three hundred years? Does anybody know?
I don't want to say "The End is Nigh", but I also don't want to assume we have an unlimited number of attempts to get humanity pointed in the right direction. I think the more education and curiosity we pump out into the system, the better our chances.
I don't consider the things I write about to be anything new or groundbreaking. Nor do I offer fresh perspectives or nuanced opinions. That isn't my goal. I think we're already immersed enough with new ideas, controversies, and events. We'll never be short on these.
What I think we lack most is clarity on a fundamental level. We lack a basic understanding of the issues. We also lack an interest in intellectual growth.
Too many of us think we have it all figured out and too many of us oversimplify the issues. We have very little incentive to reevaluate our convictions and make room for growth. As a result, the gap between laity and scholarship continues to widen and opposing extremes continue to develop between us.
Alarmist Thinking
From my perspective, if we don't make an effort to bridge this gap, we can only look forward to more societal dissonance and frustration. Our future will be filled with more pious dogmatism from both sides clogging up the system and making cooperation impossible.
While scholarship is busy advancing society behind closed doors, I don't believe their ivory towers can withstand the force of an angry mob. It only takes one event to trigger panic, causing doors to slam shut on progress. I think we've seen this happen numerous times. It's happening right now.
While many trust society to slowly advance forward despite all the kicking and screaming in between, it's not something I'm willing to gamble on. Will we ultimately overcome our fear, apathy, and selfishness? Or will the pendulum of human progress continue to swing back and forth, only on more advanced platforms?
Further, how much time do have left to get our shit together? Does the forecast predict clear skies and sustainability for the next three hundred years? Does anybody know?
I don't want to say "The End is Nigh", but I also don't want to assume we have an unlimited number of attempts to get humanity pointed in the right direction. I think the more education and curiosity we pump out into the system, the better our chances.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Clearing the Air on Marijuana
Immoral Behavior
Let’s get one thing straight. Marijuana, like any other
substance or object on this earth, is not good or bad in itself. Inanimate objects
are nonmoral. We can all agree to
this at least, right? Just as guns can be used for good or bad purposes, marijuana
can also be used for good or bad purposes.
(Need it be said that Marijuana has several different uses
beside recreation.)
Further, I think we can also agree that consuming marijuana
is not, in itself, an immoral act. Whether it’s used for medicinal purposes or to
achieve relaxation, no one is directly, immediately, or permanently injured by
its use. (At least, no more than a thousand other acceptable things we do to
ourselves.)
Consuming marijuana, like the consumption of any other
substance, becomes immoral depending on the way we use it. Similarly, just as
pain killers can be used responsibly, they can also become an addiction which begins
to cost us personally and cost those who depend on us.
Moderation versus Extremism
When does consuming a substance like marijuana become moral or immoral? I tend to agree with Aristotle on this one (please excuse the
pretentious reference): Moderation, guided by wisdom, can lead us to a prosperous
life. That is to say, determining unhealthy extremes for ourselves demarcates appropriate
and inappropriate behavior.
Incidentally, this also happens to be a theme exhibited in
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and several other religious and secular philosophies.
Simply put, the use of a substance becomes inappropriate when
we abuse it. When we allow it to alter our priorities, degrade our health, ruin
our relationships, jeopardize our integrity, impact our choices, and make us unnecessarily dependent on it… we’ve gone too far. However, it is possible to use any substance (alcohol
and pain medication included) responsibly.
The Domino Argument
I know what you’re thinking. What about the addiction factor?
What about the domino effect? How can we expect people to resist such a
tempting extreme or keep their defenses strong against other potential addictions?
It’s an important question. If something radically interferes
with our judgment and necessarily diminishes our sense of self-control, it’s
dangerous. It’s hard to imagine how we could use such a thing responsibly.
However, the question remains, is marijuana one of those things? Does any consistent use of marijuana, in whatever portion, lead to
an eventual breakdown of self-control? Does it dramatically alter our judgment
in a way that is dangerous?
Many would answer this question by relying on either gut
instinct, anecdotal accounts, or isolated reports they happened to stumble upon.
Some might even be ambitious enough to visit Google and type in the words “reasons
marijuana is bad”. However, both groups haven’t really done their homework and their motives are questionable. We’re gonna have to roll up our sleeves and survey
all the available research if we really want to have an informed opinion.
Research
...Yea, I’m not about to compile all that for you. But I can give
you a hint on what you’ll probably find. You’ll find some studies supporting your view,
and some against it. Nothing unusual there. However, to date, it seems most
research concludes marijuana is generally safe. In the least, it’s far less
dangerous than alcohol, and if that hasn’t already brought society to it's knees, I don’t know what would.
But have no fear concerned parents! Research doesn’t yield
indisputable truths. It merely provides us with the best information available to date. Research will probably
continue. That’s the nature of science.
The important point is to acknowledge the scientific consensus,
include it within our assessment, and reserve at least a little bit of skepticism
for the conclusions both we and the scientific community formulate. Digging in our
heels and insisting we know better than every professional in the field puts us
one step away from the anti-vaccine movement, and two steps away from the
Westboro Baptist folks. Simple-minded dogmatism sucks.
Morality and the Law
Whatever our conclusion about marijuana, I think it’s
important we recognize the distinction between what the law permits and what we
actually consider moral. Morality and the law are not synonymous. They serve
different purposes. What our government fails to criminalize is not a statement
about what our government deems moral.
Sometimes we criminalize things that aren’t immoral by any
standard (e.g. building fires in your backyard or lighting off fireworks.)
Other times, we deliberately fail to criminalize an act we all agree is immoral.
For instance, we do not criminalize gluttony, laziness,
arrogance, or divorce yet many people would consider these immoral qualities
and behaviors. Many religious types would consider blaspheming their deity or
rejecting conversion immoral, but they do not insist that the government criminalize
such actions (at least not nowadays and not in this part of the world, thank
the Good Lord).
We make room for certain personal freedoms for many reasons.
Sometimes it’s simply impractical or superfluous to criminalize an immoral
behavior. We can’t exhaust our resources attempting to beat everyone into
perfection (as if that would work). Other times, criminalizing an immoral
behavior incites even more immorality or makes our living conditions even
worse. The balance between enforcing personal morality and actually improving the world is a hard one to strike.
Ultimately, whether or not you personally determine all uses
of recreational marijuana to be immoral, consider the fact that the law is here
to make life better for everyone. It is not here to futility exhaust resources
in attempting to beat everyone into our ideal moral mold. Sometimes a compromise is in everyone's best interest.
My Conclusion
Officially introducing the freedom to smoke marijuana
may put one more potential addiction or vice on the table for everyone, but the
evidence suggests it’s far less of a concern than a dozen others things which
have been on the table for much longer. We may ultimately determine it is not good
for society as a whole, but we have little reason to demonize it at this point.
Further, cultivating self-control in ourselves and in our
children has always been a challenging task and far from an exact science. If
we can maneuver ourselves around a dozen other worse obstacles towards this
goal, we’ve probably got a fighting chance. This is not to say marijuana is of
no concern. But we’ll need better evidence than the proverbial, “It’s bad, Mkay.”
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Everything Wrong with Dogma
The Problem of Dogma
I've made the mistake before of calling religious people dogmatic without qualification and this has unfortunately given me the appearance of being jaded towards them. They see me as painting the faithful with a broad brush, discounting all the gentle and respectable church folk who have no intention of pushing their religious views on others.
The word dogmatism conjures up images of rude, pushy, and brash people who simply can't take in criticism or advice. We might be reminded of Westboro Baptist proponents or Muslim Jihadists, for example. We see them as being so engorged with hatred that they simply cannot be reasoned with.
However, in reality, dogmatism isn't so much a bad attitude or a particular outlook on life. It's an approach to the truth. It's a belief we hold about ourselves on how we access or relate to the truth. It's a belief we can hold quietly or loudly, innocently or viciously.
My Definition
Dogmatism, as I use the term, refers to the belief that we can intuit or recognize the truth instinctively. It is a deep trust in oneself. It is a belief that our powers of perception are sufficient.
Where we claim to discover truth is not important. We may find truth within ourselves. We may find it in the world around us. We may also claim to find it through spiritual revelation. But the important part is, when we see it, we know it is the truth. We trust our internal truth-compass. Unless something else comes along and smacks us upside the head, we usually stick with what we've discovered.
This may sound an awful lot like merely having an opinion, but the key difference is in the amount of confidence we invest into an opinion versus a truth. We hold opinions tentatively. We recognize the gap between our perception and reality. However, dogmatism causes us to consider our perceptions as being virtually synonymous with reality. Here, we are comfortable holding on to our perceptions tightly, without concern for what alternatives might be out there.
Fundamentally, dogmatism is the state of ignoring our fallibility, ignoring the multitude of possibilities in the world, and being unmotivated to look any further as a result. We are no longer critically evaluating ourselves and seeking out new possibilities. We are satisfied, confident in our initial perception, and we are stagnant.
Shortsightedness
As I see it, this approach to the truth is the root of so much human shortsightedness, limitation, stagnation, and stubbornness. We dig a trench too soon because the ground just feels right for it. We can't accept the possibility that our fundamental values and intuitions about the world could truly be wrong. They seem so right, and that is good enough for us.
Thus, the world remains in stalemate. We can only achieve so much cooperation, compromise, and creativity because so many of us can't give up our fundamental feeling of being right. We see no need to leave our comfort zone and look around for more once we've found what we think we're looking for. Worse, some of us are engaged in trying to bring the whole world into the little trench we've dug for ourselves.
Spirituality
Bringing this back home, religion and other kinds of mysticism are often heavily fortified by dogmatism, from my perspective. Granted, this is not the case for all religion. But certainly Christianity would be a prime example of one. Aside from its blatant reliance on subjective spiritual affirmations –the weakest of all approaches to truth– it encourages members to dig their trenches deeper. It encourages more faith.
It sounds like a very pious thing to place more faith in the deity, but what believers are really being asked to do, is place more faith in themselves. That is to say, believers are encouraged to abandon concerns over their fallibility and turn a blind eye to possibility. They need to focus on being right in their view of God. If they were to consider their fallibility and consider alternative views on reality, doubt would be the result. And that's very bad for faith.
Christianity, like many other religions, encourages dogmatism. It does so under the guise of piousness and humility. "Believe more, consider other alternatives less." If this were not the case, church would be a research center, not a place where people encourage each other to hold on to a conclusion till the point of death.
I've made the mistake before of calling religious people dogmatic without qualification and this has unfortunately given me the appearance of being jaded towards them. They see me as painting the faithful with a broad brush, discounting all the gentle and respectable church folk who have no intention of pushing their religious views on others.
The word dogmatism conjures up images of rude, pushy, and brash people who simply can't take in criticism or advice. We might be reminded of Westboro Baptist proponents or Muslim Jihadists, for example. We see them as being so engorged with hatred that they simply cannot be reasoned with.
However, in reality, dogmatism isn't so much a bad attitude or a particular outlook on life. It's an approach to the truth. It's a belief we hold about ourselves on how we access or relate to the truth. It's a belief we can hold quietly or loudly, innocently or viciously.
My Definition
Dogmatism, as I use the term, refers to the belief that we can intuit or recognize the truth instinctively. It is a deep trust in oneself. It is a belief that our powers of perception are sufficient.
Where we claim to discover truth is not important. We may find truth within ourselves. We may find it in the world around us. We may also claim to find it through spiritual revelation. But the important part is, when we see it, we know it is the truth. We trust our internal truth-compass. Unless something else comes along and smacks us upside the head, we usually stick with what we've discovered.
This may sound an awful lot like merely having an opinion, but the key difference is in the amount of confidence we invest into an opinion versus a truth. We hold opinions tentatively. We recognize the gap between our perception and reality. However, dogmatism causes us to consider our perceptions as being virtually synonymous with reality. Here, we are comfortable holding on to our perceptions tightly, without concern for what alternatives might be out there.
Fundamentally, dogmatism is the state of ignoring our fallibility, ignoring the multitude of possibilities in the world, and being unmotivated to look any further as a result. We are no longer critically evaluating ourselves and seeking out new possibilities. We are satisfied, confident in our initial perception, and we are stagnant.
Shortsightedness
As I see it, this approach to the truth is the root of so much human shortsightedness, limitation, stagnation, and stubbornness. We dig a trench too soon because the ground just feels right for it. We can't accept the possibility that our fundamental values and intuitions about the world could truly be wrong. They seem so right, and that is good enough for us.
Thus, the world remains in stalemate. We can only achieve so much cooperation, compromise, and creativity because so many of us can't give up our fundamental feeling of being right. We see no need to leave our comfort zone and look around for more once we've found what we think we're looking for. Worse, some of us are engaged in trying to bring the whole world into the little trench we've dug for ourselves.
Spirituality
Bringing this back home, religion and other kinds of mysticism are often heavily fortified by dogmatism, from my perspective. Granted, this is not the case for all religion. But certainly Christianity would be a prime example of one. Aside from its blatant reliance on subjective spiritual affirmations –the weakest of all approaches to truth– it encourages members to dig their trenches deeper. It encourages more faith.
It sounds like a very pious thing to place more faith in the deity, but what believers are really being asked to do, is place more faith in themselves. That is to say, believers are encouraged to abandon concerns over their fallibility and turn a blind eye to possibility. They need to focus on being right in their view of God. If they were to consider their fallibility and consider alternative views on reality, doubt would be the result. And that's very bad for faith.
Christianity, like many other religions, encourages dogmatism. It does so under the guise of piousness and humility. "Believe more, consider other alternatives less." If this were not the case, church would be a research center, not a place where people encourage each other to hold on to a conclusion till the point of death.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Proud to Be an American
Extremes
I struggled a long time with my position on nationalism and patriotism. On the one extreme, I knew people who seemed to blindly worship their nation, considering its every defender a hero, and refusing to consider the possibility that its people were not as morally superior and high-minded as they believed themselves to be. On the other extreme, there were those who seemed committed to finding fault or who didn't care either way.
I knew there was plenty of good here in my home country which deserved credit, but I wasn't sure what it meant to pledge my allegiance to the nation as a whole. Would I be embracing everything it stands for and everything it has done historically? Would I be pledging allegiance to a contrived human institution? Would I be placing this contrived institution on a pedestal, further deepening human tribalism and segregation?
I knew my nation wasn't perfect. I knew it had done things and will continue to do things which are morally questionable. The U.S. does have a lot of blood on its hands, like it or not. Yet we also have some great ideals here. We are rights-oriented, and our internal struggle to maintain and reproduce values like these is proof that our democracy and philosophy hasn't been broken quite yet. Whatever our level of corruption (compared to that of any other), we still have a good number of people here trying to make a positive difference in the world.
My Conclusion
Taking the good with the bad, my personal conclusion was intended to be a moderate one. I wouldn't blindly pledge allegiance to my country or take pride in merely being part of it by the sheerest of accidents. Nor would I assume we were morally superior. There's some good here and there's some bad here. How much of each, I'll never know.
My commitment to this country, or rather my patriotism, is conditional. That is to say, insofar as my nation supports me, gives me due process, and does the same for others, I will support my nation and give it due process. Just as it holds me responsible for my injustices, I will hold it responsible for its injustices.
My commitment to this country is also familial. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius noted long ago, our nation is our extended family. It supports and provides for us in many ways and we, in turn, support and provide for it. That seems fair enough. And, not to discount the rest of the world here, I would also hope more and more that we view the international community as our extended family. I am also committed to this goal.
With this reasoning in mind, I can say in good conscience that I pledge allegiance to the flag. It's a commitment to a people and a system which are, at this time, committed to me and at least some of my ideals. Admittedly, I have to stop short of the 1954 addendum, but that's a matter for another post.
I struggled a long time with my position on nationalism and patriotism. On the one extreme, I knew people who seemed to blindly worship their nation, considering its every defender a hero, and refusing to consider the possibility that its people were not as morally superior and high-minded as they believed themselves to be. On the other extreme, there were those who seemed committed to finding fault or who didn't care either way.
I knew there was plenty of good here in my home country which deserved credit, but I wasn't sure what it meant to pledge my allegiance to the nation as a whole. Would I be embracing everything it stands for and everything it has done historically? Would I be pledging allegiance to a contrived human institution? Would I be placing this contrived institution on a pedestal, further deepening human tribalism and segregation?
I knew my nation wasn't perfect. I knew it had done things and will continue to do things which are morally questionable. The U.S. does have a lot of blood on its hands, like it or not. Yet we also have some great ideals here. We are rights-oriented, and our internal struggle to maintain and reproduce values like these is proof that our democracy and philosophy hasn't been broken quite yet. Whatever our level of corruption (compared to that of any other), we still have a good number of people here trying to make a positive difference in the world.
My Conclusion
Taking the good with the bad, my personal conclusion was intended to be a moderate one. I wouldn't blindly pledge allegiance to my country or take pride in merely being part of it by the sheerest of accidents. Nor would I assume we were morally superior. There's some good here and there's some bad here. How much of each, I'll never know.
My commitment to this country, or rather my patriotism, is conditional. That is to say, insofar as my nation supports me, gives me due process, and does the same for others, I will support my nation and give it due process. Just as it holds me responsible for my injustices, I will hold it responsible for its injustices.
My commitment to this country is also familial. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius noted long ago, our nation is our extended family. It supports and provides for us in many ways and we, in turn, support and provide for it. That seems fair enough. And, not to discount the rest of the world here, I would also hope more and more that we view the international community as our extended family. I am also committed to this goal.
With this reasoning in mind, I can say in good conscience that I pledge allegiance to the flag. It's a commitment to a people and a system which are, at this time, committed to me and at least some of my ideals. Admittedly, I have to stop short of the 1954 addendum, but that's a matter for another post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)