Absolutism

[Celsus]

It is interesting to me that Christians, as well as other Abrahamic religious people claim that God gives them absolute morality and then engage and have engaged in fierce dabates about what is moral or not. A modern example is the raging debate between the anti-abortion and pro-choice crowds within religion. Not to forget, it is also a debate amongst non-religious people. However, a more fundamentalist Christian would say that abortion is wrong because they equate it with murder. However, a reading of the Biblical injunctions surrounding murder and prebirth termination of a fetus, do not bear this assertion out. So what they are proving is that their absolute morality is nothing of the sort, it is provisional and open to change. A historical example is slavery. 200 years ago, slavery was justified by the Bible, however you would be hard pressed to find any modern Christian advocating that slavery is moral now. Morality evolves within human society, like everything else. So much for absolute morality from an invisible, magical being, eh.

 

Bruce

[Open_Minded]

Antlerman and Bruce:

 

It's always been my observation that people are "moral" to the degree that they are able to empathize.

 

Do you know what I mean?

 

For example - in regards to the following:

 

Whatever is best to call this, whether it is relative or provisional ethics, the idea I believe is the same. I think that the complexity of reality in human society on a global scale cannot allow for narrow definitions of truth, a one size fits all formula. If we were a group of 10,000 living on a hill side with other tribes “out there”, our local gods, laws, and world views would be effective, but not once we intermingle into a greater society many of these tribes each with their own gods, let alone mixing them into one with a population of 7 billion.

 

When humanity was a group of 10,000 living on a hillside with other tribes "out there" - then there was very little need for empathy with people different from self and culture.

 

Now that humanity must "intermingle into a greater society" our need for and display of empathy increases. The reality of living with each other dictates that empathy increase, or we will destroy each other.

 

As individual and cultural empathy increases - morality changes. The way one treats other individuals may be directly related to the ability to empathize with other individuals.

 

Bruce, I agree with your statement that morality evolves, I would just add that it evolves to the degree that humans are able to empathize. For instance, about slavery. In this country, slavery was allowed and condoned in large part because Blacks were considered subhuman. The Bible was used to teach this. As humans grew to understand and accept that Blacks are human, morality changed. Empathy pushed the change in morality.

 

Do you know what I mean?

[Celsus]

Open Minded,

 

I agree. This is what I was talking about with "in group" versus "out group" morality. Religion, nationalism, gay/straight designations, etc. all breed an "in group" versus "out group" mentality. We can wage war upon those damned Muslims, because they are not "our group". We can hate those damned Japs/Indians/Iraqi's because they are not our "in group". Straight people can despise and discriminate against gay people because they are not in outr "in group". All of this boils down to artificial absolutes, which revelatory religions create, strengthen and perpetuate. If God tells you those "other" people are not only different, but they are also evil agents, it is a whole lot easier to justify your own inhumane behavior.

 

One of the most profound things one can see in terms of human history is you first demonize those you oppose, which dehumanizes them. Once they are dehumanized, they are no longer thought of as "like us" and our actions no longer seem so bad. The Nazis did this to the Jews. Americans did this to the Native Americans. Romans did it to others (barbarians). Organized Christianity did it to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Organized Isla does it to Jews, Christians and others.

 

Humanity has to evolve our morality and our conceptions past this US versus Them, group think.

 

Bruce

[Asimov]

I always have trouble with this...

 

Wouldn't it be absolutely true that there was life before humans? That there would be life, if possible, after humans? Would this life still take in energy the same way as we recognize it now as we did and life before us did?

 

Isn't it absolutely true that life can exist without humans?

 

Relativism, like absolutism, are both misguided philosophies.

Can you expand on that a little please? Are you saying that what is relative is not what is absolute? Which would make some things absolute wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that absolutes only appear to be absolute to us by our relative views? Which would make absolutes relative wouldn't it? Okay...I'm confused. Is there a middle ground between absolutism and relativism?

 

I'm saying that there are things that are absolute and that there are things that are relative.

 

A triangle has three sides is an absolute. I'm talking about the geometrical polygon. There are no square circles is an absolute.

[NotBlinded]

I'm saying that there are things that are absolute and that there are things that are relative.

 

A triangle has three sides is an absolute. I'm talking about the geometrical polygon. There are no square circles is an absolute.

Okay...I see it that way too. I think where the problem comes in is with trying to deal with abstract ideas such as morals and ethics.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman and Bruce:

 

It's always been my observation that people are "moral" to the degree that they are able to empathize.

 

<snip>

 

When humanity was a group of 10,000 living on a hillside with other tribes "out there" - then there was very little need for empathy with people different from self and culture.

 

Now that humanity must "intermingle into a greater society" our need for and display of empathy increases. The reality of living with each other dictates that empathy increase, or we will destroy each other.

 

As individual and cultural empathy increases - morality changes. The way one treats other individuals may be directly related to the ability to empathize with other individuals.

There was no reason, no motivation to try to understand those beyond the borders of your tribes land. The need for survival in a setting of many and vaired views and value systems, demands that we learn cooperate, to find understanding. To look to ourselves and apply the "golden rule", allows us to make the effort necessary to try to understand different points of view.

 

To be absolutist in thinking will not allow someone to make that effort to find some validity in other points of view, as it has already discarded anything different as "not truth", in a black and white world. Consequently, the person believing differently is dismissed, or attacked to either get rid of them or force them to convert to "the truth". No personal growth happens for the individual either as they never make any effort to try to understand and consequently learn from others, benefiting from the uniqueness of "the others" experiences and difference of ideas.

 

I guess I would say it's more about seeking cooperation in the human society, and the best way to do this is throught respect and empathy within a philosophical framework that it completely open-ended, allowing for all possiblites.

[Dhampir]

When humanity was a group of 10,000 living on a hillside with other tribes "out there" - then there was very little need for empathy with people different from self and culture.

It's possible that we have developed technologically too far too fast for our ability to empathize. That could concievably explain why more and more wars happen when it appears that fewer should be occuring.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

A triangle has three sides is an absolute. I'm talking about the geometrical polygon. There are no square circles is an absolute.[/b]

 

Hey, Asimov. I think that which is of political significance are assertions that there are absolutes in the realm of moral judgments. Is "X is right" an analytic proposition? You are an objectivist, right? How do you really establish that "X is right" is true absolutely? I think this is the hard part in any philosophical system I've encountered.

 

Maybe intuitionism is the best we can do. What do you think?

[Asimov]

Hey, Asimov. I think that which is of political significance are assertions that there are absolutes in the realm of moral judgments. Is "X is right" an analytic proposition? You are an objectivist, right? How do you really establish that "X is right" is true absolutely? I think this is the hard part in any philosophical system I've encountered.

 

Morality, in objectivism, is a code of values that one follows by choice in order to further ones own life (pursuit of happiness and fulfillment as well as survival).

 

The foundational values that someone must follow is: Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem.

 

X is right if:

 

It follows a rational chain of premises that lead to a rational conclusion (not logically fallacious, contradictory, and/or contrary to the facts of reality).

 

It fulfills a purpose that leads me to become a happier individual.

 

It creates a sense of self-worth and value of oneself and ones life.

 

That is how objectivism deals with philosophical questions like "X is right".

 

Maybe intuitionism is the best we can do. What do you think?

 

Intuitionism is blindly following ones arbitrary whims and desires.

 

Okay...I see it that way too. I think where the problem comes in is with trying to deal with abstract ideas such as morals and ethics.

 

It is, and descriptively, most moral systems are subjective that we see in reality today. That either points to a lack of rationality in the creation of moral systems or a lack of knowledge of possible objective morals.

 

I would point to lack of rationality since I don't know nor do I believe that morals are facts.

[heschel]

Intuitionism is blindly following ones arbitrary whims and desires.

 

Okay. But isn't the secular view of morality, at least that semi-innate sense of right and wrong, that we have evolved our morality by necessity, through establishing communities and eventually empires? Doesn't even the secularist, by bowing to our innate sense of morality, something which they assume is a product of evolution, acknowledge that there is an ultimate "right and wrong" but passes the buck to the religious to sputter through their arguments, each eventually arriving at the same conclusion.

 

Whatever innate morality we all p[ossess is ultimately what defines morality for all of us. The religious man will claim his texts are the source of morality, and yet he chooses what he wants to follow based on his own innate morality.

 

Deciding what's moral based entirely on reason and rationality will only create a system of dogmatic justice. One must delve into the depths of their "soul" in order to muster the strength to afford mercy. I find mercy to be a far higher ideal than justice. Justice is the legacy of machines. Mercy is the language of life.

[Dhampir]

Doesn't even the secularist, by bowing to our innate sense of morality, something which they assume is a product of evolution, acknowledge that there is an ultimate "right and wrong"

How do you draw that conclusion?

[heschel]

Doesn't even the secularist, by bowing to our innate sense of morality, something which they assume is a product of evolution, acknowledge that there is an ultimate "right and wrong"

How do you draw that conclusion?

 

 

If you say that morality is the product of evolution, then yoou are admitting that there is a most -perfect, most- functional form of morality. evolution is always working to grease the cogs and produce the highest degree of functionality for life. Even if you recognise the ultimate mutability of life, given the evolutional model, whatever methos we've developed to more adequately live together is just another step in a natural progression toward perfect functionality. Even when you take into account the changing landscape to which life is always called to adapt, as a critic of consciousness, you have to nod to idea that life is compelling us into the most economic milieu, whatever that may be. The details of moral behavior may be constantly being enhanced, but the secular ideal is that there is some absolute, to which we are being compelled by the forces of nature, and not some god.

[Dhampir]

Evolution works to produce the ideal traits for survival in a given environment. Not perfection. At any rate, how do you draw the idea that a. there's an absolute morality from evolution, and b. that 'secularists' believe in and search for an absolute morality?

[heschel]

Evolution works to produce the ideal traits for survival in a given environment. Not perfection. At any rate, how do you draw the idea that a. there's an absolute morality from evolution, and b. that 'secularists' believe in and search for an absolute morality?

 

 

Absolute morality, in an evolutionary light, is simply stating the perameters within which society is most able to function. Secularists may njot acknowledge it, but they tacitly acknowledge that there is always a "most evolutionarily viable" position to take, in any circumstance. If this stance is subjected to scrutiny it will devolve into a basic acknowledgement of the rights of the individual as offset by the needs of the community. The very idea that you could endaevor to make this kind of community nods to the idea that there is a "perfect" way to run said community. I'm not trying to say I know the perfect way, but liberal ideology usually has some "perfect way" at it's impetus.

[Dhampir]

There is no 'most evolutionarily viable' anything, as that would presume that lower species have a perfect morality based on instinct. It also presumes that the conditions for the generation of mores as societies move are static. Additionally, individuality offsets group morality, which would render it very difficult, if not impossible to come to such a perfect society. Finally, you'd think that someone would have some idea by now of at least what direction perfect or absolute morality would come from.

 

I'm not denying that absolute morality exists, but looked at from an evolutionary standpoint, it just doesn't seem likely.

[Asimov]

Okay. But isn't the secular view of morality, at least that semi-innate sense of right and wrong, that we have evolved our morality by necessity, through establishing communities and eventually empires? Doesn't even the secularist, by bowing to our innate sense of morality, something which they assume is a product of evolution, acknowledge that there is an ultimate "right and wrong" but passes the buck to the religious to sputter through their arguments, each eventually arriving at the same conclusion.

 

No, not all behaviours are gentically or evolutionary determined.

 

Whatever innate morality we all p[ossess is ultimately what defines morality for all of us. The religious man will claim his texts are the source of morality, and yet he chooses what he wants to follow based on his own innate morality.

 

No.

 

Deciding what's moral based entirely on reason and rationality will only create a system of dogmatic justice.

 

What are you talking about? Explain.

 

 

If you say that morality is the product of evolution, then yoou are admitting that there is a most -perfect, most- functional form of morality.

 

No, that is entirely wrong.

[heschel]

No, not all behaviours are gentically or evolutionary determined.

 

The balance of our behaviors being behaviors reinforced by our genetically predisposed reactions to stimulus and our subsequent assessment of that stimulus and it's constituent rewarding or punishing of said stimulus.

 

No.

 

It is prodigiously difficult to formulate a rebuttal to a monosyllabic argument. Forgive me.

 

What are you talking about? Explain.

 

True justtice is a supremely amorphous moral concept. It takes into account, if it is real, so many different variable, many of which are culturally specific. If we were all relegated to a Spockian system iof judgement, which particular language would we employ in order to determine when mercy is appropriate?

 

No, that is entirely wrong.

 

Perhaps you are right, but imagine for just one moment how much more satisfied you and your audience would be if you had presented a reason for why you are right.

[Asimov]

The balance of our behaviors being behaviors reinforced by our genetically predisposed reactions to stimulus and our subsequent assessment of that stimulus and it's constituent rewarding or punishing of said stimulus.

 

I don't need irrelevant cut and pastes from textbooks. If you actually have something to say, say it.

 

It is prodigiously difficult to formulate a rebuttal to a monosyllabic argument. Forgive me.

 

Well then don't say stupid shit. We don't have an innate sense of morality.

 

True justtice is a supremely amorphous moral concept. It takes into account, if it is real, so many different variable, many of which are culturally specific. If we were all relegated to a Spockian system iof judgement, which particular language would we employ in order to determine when mercy is appropriate?

 

Why is mercy appropriate? You do something bad and you know it's bad then you're punished for it.

 

Perhaps you are right, but imagine for just one moment how much more satisfied you and your audience would be if you had presented a reason for why you are right.

 

I'm right because you don't know anything about evolution and what it entails and I don't want to waste my time on people who potentially will just shit on this thread and run.

[heschel]

I don't need irrelevant cut and pastes from textbooks.

 

Usually when people make this accusation they have something to back it up. To which textbook do you refer? If mt sentiments were irrelevent because of some previously published elucidating essay, we'd all love to see it, no?

 

If you actually have something to say, say it.

 

I've made a couple of posts now, to which you have responded with simple dismissals. If there is a flaw in my logic previously presented, please allert me to it. I can hardly be expected to rehash my position for every rogue who cant be bothered to read the previous posts.

 

Well then don't say stupid shit. We don't have an innate sense of morality.

 

Perhaps the idea of an innate sense of morality is bullshit. If so, where then is ther any grounds for an evolved sense of morality? Any evolved instinct toward morality would be innate, and so if you are arguing that morality was created be evolutionary necessity then you must bow to the morality that evoilution has creeated, no? If morality isnt innate, and is something that requires reason, then it ceases to be an evolutionarily viable concept, and becomes a truly subjective concept, based on the culturally biased nature of systems of reason.

 

Why is mercy appropriate?

 

Have you even done wrong?

 

You do something bad and you know it's bad then you're punished for it.

 

Mercy looks at mitigating circumstances and knows that right and wrong isnt a checker match.

 

I'm right because you don't know anything about evolution and what it entails and I don't want to waste my time on people who potentially will just shit on this thread and run.

 

You know that's not an argument, and it was inserted in the place of an absence of an argument. You can't possibly be satisfied.

[Open_Minded]

Antlerman and Bruce:

 

I was going to post this last night, but I got talking to my husband about it, the hour got late and I went to bed. Then I woke up this morning to find the thread has moved in an entirely new direction. What I am posting refers to our conversation about Empathy and its place in driving morality.

 

As many here know, I am involved in a mainstream Lutheran church. We have worked for years - over 10 years to be specific - to get to the point where we are now. Now we have a regular Sunday morning Interfaith/Meditative service. We also have the regular traditional and contemporary service.

 

Well, this fall the leaders of the church have made an effort to increase communication between people from all three services. Last night we sponsored a pot-luck meal to talk about Interspirituality.

 

People from all three services showed up. One of the things we did is intentionally ask people from each service to share their story. One gentleman, who shared his story, attends the interfaith/meditative service. He told his story, his story includes the fact that he is not Christian. That he grew up in a Lutheran home but he does not consider himself Christian, more Deist. That Jesus is one of many spiritual teachers/masters to him.

 

He was telling this story in the basement of a 150 year old little white, mainstream Lutheran church. He was telling this story to people who have only ever gone to Lutheran churches. One family in attendance is 7th generation to our church. They can point to stainglass windows in our church donated by their ancestors. The first service our church ever had (150 years ago) was on the lawn of the family farm.

 

And here - these very traditionally minded people were listening to the story of someone more like yourselves. And they welcomed him, they genuinely thanked him for sharing his story. And they affirmed his belief that if there is a "God of Love, then there is no hell". They affirmed his statement that Christianity has failed in its dogma and lost its spirituality.

 

The reason I am telling you this story, is that 10 years ago, someone telling a story such as this would not have happened at our church. It took 10 years of education. Now these people can empathize, then they couldn't. Last night I saw them empathizing. It was a moment when I realized all those years of work were paying off. When this gentleman talked about the failures of Christianity, they chimed in with stories of their own. They were empathizing, it took 10 years of work to get them to the point where they could look at the failures of Christianity without feeling defensive, but they have arrived. They can be honest about their belief system and not feel threatened. They can see its failures in the larger culture and empathize with those who walk away.

 

It was a very satisifying night, and this conversation about empathy and morality came back to me more than once.

 

Thank you for starting it, Antlerman.

[Antlerman]

Please Note: As originator of this topic in the Colleseum, where more serious, intelligent discussions are allowed to occur, I am politely requesting that the use of insulting language towards any poster be discontinued. There is no purpose served in calling other's posts, "stupid", "silly", "retarded", etc, and this sort of insulting language is disruptive and works counter to serious discussion that others are trying to engage in. It is unwelcome here. Please refrain from insulting language in here, or remove yourself voluntarily from the discussion and allow others to continue undisrupted. Thank you.

 

Heschel,

 

I appreciate the things you are saying, but isn't the core driving force of evolution adaptation for the purpose of survival? To say a "perfect" morality to me seems to imply a static ideal. Anything which is static is counter to life, which is not static. Couldn't we say then that the "perfect" morality is one which is adaptive?

 

The perfect society is one where its rules based on the needs of yesterday do not interfere with the rules established to address the needs of today, or the needs of tomorrow. The ideal society is one that is flexible; allowing the social structure to adapt to whatever environment it finds itself in. Any “perfect” morality suggests a single one, one that is static. To me the perfect society is one that is allowed to adapt. Dogma is inflexible. Absolutes are inflexible and work against life as it is.

 

I had the thought to mention the Bonobo's social structure here. They are a primate related to the common chimpanzee, and are more than 98% genetically identical to homo sapiens. The differ from chimpanzees socially in radically different ways where females are very dominant in the society and widespread sexual activity is the norm between all members: group sex, female/female, male/male, etc.

 

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex.[2] In scientific literature, the female-female sex is often referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing, while male-male sex is sometimes referred to as penis fencing.

 

Sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it, and often involves adults and children. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age, with the possible exception of sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding.[5]

 

Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital sex (frot).[6] [3][4] One form has two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing". Frot may also occur where two males rub their penises together while in missionary position. A special form of frot called "rump rubbing" occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, where they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacks together.

 

Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital sex (tribadism) to socially bond with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of bonobo society. While Bonobo society is nonviolent and egalitarian, friendships among females organize their offspring who maintain lifelong loyalty to their mothers. In this way, females often have more influence in group decisions. Adolescent females often leave their troop of birth to join another troop. Sexual bonding with other females establishes the new females as members of the group. This troop migration mixes the bonobo gene pools.

 

Bonobo reproductive rates are not any higher than that of the Common Chimpanzee. Female bonobos carry and nurse their young for five years and can give birth every five to six years. Compared to Common Chimpanzees, Bonobo females resume the genital swelling cycle much sooner after giving birth, allowing them to rejoin the sexual activities of their society. Also, Bonobo females who are either sterile or too young to reproduce engage in sexual activity.

 

The reasons that account for the difference in “morality” are environmentally based. Unlike the chimpanzees who live up in the trees and the females remain off the ground with their young while the males hunt for food of the forest floor, the bonobo’s have no natural predators and all live on the ground. As a result the females are able to create strong social bonding with other females which imposes a “cooperation” of the males in this social order. Sex is the norm.

 

Now with this example in mind, what is the ideal morality? My answer is “what works in that environment.” Are the chimps that are very aggressive and competitive where females are totally dominated “immoral”? Are the bonobos who have sex all day long for virtually any reason, “immoral”? Or is what is proper conduct, or moral behavior, what is best for the society to keep the species viable in whatever the environment dictates?

 

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Celsus]

Antlerman and OM,

 

I readily agree with what we have discussed. Taking the Pan-troglodyte and Bonobo societies and comparing them human society is revealing. Humans used to live in small tribes like they do. In fact, some still do, as in the Amish and other groups. For humans, most of our population now lives in a hugely different society than the small tribal ones that humans lived in for most of history. This is not new, looking back to the "classical age", what separated it from what came before was you now had empires with really large cities and still a lot of people living in small rural and tiny towns villages. A great deal of the problems in my estimation comes from the fact that we evolved to feel comfortable in small tribal/family groups and in the big societies we have now, people feel lost. With the increase in size of society, rules (moral/ethical conduct) now have to be defined and enforced overtly.

 

Several studies have conclusively demonstrated that human typically only really know about 150 other people and no more than about 50 very well. When you live in a small group (town/community) a great amount of moral compliance comes from the fact that everyone knows everyone else and actions effect the entire "in group". Now juxtipose that to living in a large city, which most people now live in, you know the 150 or so people that you are biologically evolved to keep track of, but everyone else is typically in your "out group". It is a lot easier to flip the bird at a stranger on the highway who cuts you off, then your mother, aunt or brother, because they are in your "in group".

 

I am hopeful that humanity can continue to redefine the concept of Us and Them. I am just concerned that our evolved biological traits may constrain our evolving culture. While some people have learned to drop the narrow "in group" mindset and thus extend empathy to a larger population, it is obvious watching the news or listening to people that we know, that a lot of people have not arrived there.

 

Take for example the Biblical statement attributed to Jesus and restated by our Glorious Leader, "You are either with me or against me" or "You are either with US or against US". This kind of rhetoric only exacerbates the problem of people learning to empathize with others because it specifically defines an "in group" and an "out group". Look at how many people in the Republican Party now look at Liberals/Democrats not as people with different viewpoints, but as traitors or enemies because they are defined by the "in group" paradigm of "with US or against US".

 

Bruce

[Antlerman]

Several studies have conclusively demonstrated that human typically only really know about 150 other people and no more than about 50 very well.

Thanks for bringing this factor up. I had been hoping to see the "monkey-sphere" idea brought up in this discussion. I have wondered if an adopted philosophy of empathy, or viewing others as yourself is what is the only thing that keeps us from killing each other.

 

The "with us or against us" approach seems to seek unity of the masses by virtue of eliminating differences, thus making it easier for the "lazy", as I'm going to call them, relate to those in the "out group". This is where I see absolutism, or binary thinking as you pointed out earlier, being exploited by the most vocal and political of society. They are appealing to the masses trying to cope with dealing with those outside their "in group" by calling everyone who they prefer to be in power "True Americans", or "The Righteous", or whatever "True" label suits them. It is not based on human emotional empathy, but rather a pseudo-unity through common ideas and exclusion of competing ideas.

 

This is where I see something like a humanist-based philosophy, whether religious or secular being much more inclusive and beneficial to everyone. We bridge that gap to others through empathizing with our common humanity, not our ideologies. It seems far easier to empathize with someone's humanity by recognizing that not one of us on this planet has any special revelatory truth above what anyone else has, and that one sincere "truth" is as valid as the next. All humans are in the "in group" of humanity. Even though they may be somewhat 2-dimensional to me because they are outside my monkey-sphere, I can step beyond that biological limitation to see them slightly more 3-dimensionally as a human being. I can empathize with human beings, whereas I cannot with someone of some political party.

 

OM, many congratulations on a big milestone for you in your efforts!

[Celsus]

Antelrman & OM,

 

I still struggle a great deal to overcome my own binary thinking. As Jeydid has told me, I am a "Puritanical Atheist" at times. For instance, I have an automatic negative reflexive action concerning people who are GLBT (non-binary sexuality). For instance, intellectually I know that the binary concepts of Straight/Bi or even Male/Female are not even realistic. While most people are born either as a male or a female, a fairly large segment of humans are born each year that are neither male, female and fall somehwere between/outside of the normative genders. I am not sure how much is biologically based and how much is cultural, but to deny that this binarism does not have roots in biology is fairly assinine. For instance, we are binary creatures. Basically, we have two eyes, two sides, two arms, two legs and we tend to categorize things into binary pigeonholes.

 

I hope I am becoming more empathetic as OM nicely voiced it. In a way, this binary thinking and the culture of it that I was programmed/reinforced with in Christianity is one the things that makes me angriest about Christianity and the revelatory religions in general. Frankly, the binary world they posit is just a mis-perception and I want to embrace reality as it is....not like I, a preacher or Dubya might want it to be.

 

Bruce

[Open_Minded]

Hello Bruce and Antlerman

 

In a way, this binary thinking and the culture of it that I was programmed/reinforced with in Christianity is one the things that makes me angriest about Christianity and the revelatory religions in general. Frankly, the binary world they posit is just a mis-perception and I want to embrace reality as it is....not like I, a preacher or Dubya might want it to be.

Bruce:

 

Don't you think the revelatory religions developed and evolved the way they did BECAUSE we are binary creatures. I mean - humans create "god" in their image, right? Don't we also create religion in our image?

 

This is where I see absolutism, or binary thinking as you pointed out earlier, being exploited by the most vocal and political of society. They are appealing to the masses trying to cope with dealing with those outside their "in group" by calling everyone who they prefer to be in power "True Americans", or "The Righteous", or whatever "True" label suits them. It is not based on human emotional empathy, but rather a pseudo-unity through common ideas and exclusion of competing ideas.

Yes - this is exactly what happens. The human tendancy to categorize things in black and white terms has been historically exploited by those in power. Our current leaders in Washington are just the latest example. What is frightening is that at this point in history - we are more capable of destroying the earth and each other than every before. Our hope is that this fact will force evolution - our group knowledge of our own ability to destroy ourselves - to bring on the "end times" will force us to evolve to learn empathy on a grander scale.

 

I hope I am becoming more empathetic as OM nicely voiced it.

Bruce - one of the things I've noticed on this board is how empathetic its members are. So often I find myself getting furious at the fundy mindset - it's hard for me to maintain patience with that mindset. I've never personally experienced it. I've learned empathy on this board.

 

OM, many congratulations on a big milestone for you in your efforts!

Antlerman, thank you.... so much. Last night was a milestone. We still have a very long way to go, but .... last night was wonderful. My whole heart and soul is bent on helping people from different spiritual perspectives find common ground. I am totally convinced that the only way there will peace in the world, is when there is peace between the world's religions. So, last night was a gentle quiet reward. Barely a whisper on the sands of times - but still - a reward.

 

Now if I could just learn to find common ground with the literalist fundies.