Unity.

[Redac]

Appeal to a common self-interest shared broadly by a political body. Facts absolutely matter in such discourse.

Facts certainly matter, but facts in themselves aren't the same as a common self-interest, or a source of unity, or what have you. You need some common value set or something that informs how you interact with the world; otherwise you're left with a list of facts and the question "Now what?".

 

[FireDragon76]

So truth is what you can observe?

Yes, I am an empiricist of sorts. I won't believe in an invisible, undetectable teapot orbiting Jupiter just on somebody else's say-so.

 

[FireDragon76]

Facts certainly matter, but facts in themselves aren't the same as a common self-interest, or a source of unity, or what have you. You need some common value set or something that informs how you interact with the world; otherwise you're left with a list of facts and the question "Now what?".

My value is very simple, it's articulated by Confucius, Buddha, and others. "Whatever is hurtful to you, don't cause to others". In addition, the Buddha taught harmless as the first moral precept, and whatever is hurtful to us, we should not cause for others.

That's not dependent on believing in a religion without evidence, just observation that ethics seems to be critical to the quest for truth, purpose, and happiness.

You are free to see it otherwise, of course, but I invite you to understand my perspective before you dismiss it.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure. It’s the truth and more folks spend eternity in heaven. Win-win.

Not exactly. Believing the Gospel is not a problem for me as I am a Christian already, but literal inerrancy is right out--it is contrary to the teachings of my church to require it, if nothing else--and being required to give lip service to it just to placate the belligerence of a religious minority would be intolerable in a secular republic where freedom of religion is guaranteed.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not exactly. Believing the Gospel is not a problem for me as I am a Christian already, but literal inerrancy is right out--it is contrary to the teachings of my church to require it, if nothing else--and giving lip service to it just to placate the belligerence of a religious minority would be intolerable in a secular republic where freedom of religion is guaranteed.

Indeed. Having studied biblical criticism, that would be a big sticking point, and was the entire time I spent as an adult Christian. Biblical inerrancy simply isn't intellectually sound. The Bible is a human document, no different than the documents of any other religion, as far as I am concerned. Furthermore, I believe the lack of critical scholarship that many Evangelicals eschew is positively dangerous.

I'm currently studying Buddhism and eastern religions and there's the same issues with critical scholarship there. There are modernist vs. traditionalist debates. The difference is that Buddhists generally aren't extremists, regardless of their approach to modernism. That's because they are driven by an ethic of the Middle Way.

 

[Speedwell]

Facts certainly matter, but facts in themselves aren't the same as a common self-interest, or a source of unity, or what have you. You need some common value set or something that informs how you interact with the world; otherwise you're left with a list of facts and the question "Now what?".

It used to be enough that we were all Americans.

 

[Redac]

My value is very simple, it's articulated by Confucius, Buddha, and others. "Whatever is hurtful to you, don't cause to others". In addition, the Buddha taught harmless as the first moral precept, and whatever is hurtful to us, we should not cause for others.

That's not dependent on believing in a religion without evidence, just observation that ethics seems to be critical to the quest for truth, purpose, and happiness.

You are free to see it otherwise, of course, but I invite you to understand my perspective before you dismiss it.

My initial response was based on the idea of finding some kind of unity in "facts and science" by themselves absent some principle or value system held in common. It reminded me of how I've sometimes heard people talk about how "evidence and science" should be the only consideration in determining policy, as if those by themselves are much more than descriptive. If that's not what you meant then fair enough.

Anywho, I am curious about your perspective, believe it or not. How absolute are you in your application of this variation of the golden rule? I also find your statement about ethics and truth/purpose/happiness interesting, particularly as it relates to the quest for truth. My initial thought is that in many ways the search for truth, particularly if your means are mostly empirical, would be a largely amoral pursuit. How do you see it?

 

[FireDragon76]

My initial response was based on the idea of finding some kind of unity in "facts and science" by themselves absent some principle or value system held in common. It reminded me of how I've sometimes heard people talk about how "evidence and science" should be the only consideration in determining policy, as if those by themselves are much more than descriptive. If that's not what you meant then fair enough.

I see what you are driving at... the fact/value distinction that Hume articulated.

Anywho, I am curious about your perspective, believe it or not. How absolute are you in your application of this variation of the golden rule?

I think it's a good heuristic, but I don't believe in absolutism. I reject the Christian concept of sin or that there are absolute and objective moral laws.

I also find your statement about ethics and truth/purpose/happiness interesting, particularly as it relates to the quest for truth. My initial thought is that in many ways the search for truth, particularly if your means are mostly empirical, would be a largely amoral pursuit. How do you see it?

My perspective is as a spiritual humanist who is somewhat of a perennialist. The Rev. Dr. Gordon Bermant, the former bishop of the Buddhist Church of America, articulated it well in a lecture I saw a while back- western civilization has reached a dead end because it's divorced ethics from the rest of philosophy, instead of having ethics central to philosophical questions, as it is in Buddhism. The result has been nihilism, the sort of nihilism that Nietzsche prophesied. That is why you see moral decay and anomie in our society. Christian fundamentalism is merely a manifestation of that nihilism, and Christian nationalism even moreso. People believe in the forms of the religion, but discover it has no substance.

It goes back to that fact/value distinction I mentioned earlier. In divorcing value from facts, the door is opened to nihilism. This isn't an inevitability, but is due to the spurious use of reason and the assumption that there is no intrinsic moral ordering immanent in the world, no interrelationship between phenomena, etc.

 

[Redac]

It used to be enough that we were all Americans.

Perhaps, but I think "American" also used to be a much more exclusive category in most people's minds.

I mean, what exactly does it mean that we're all American? What's the content of that? What do we have in common to unite around?

 

[Hammster]

Yes, I am an empiricist of sorts. I won't believe in an invisible, undetectable teapot orbiting Jupiter just on somebody else's say-so.

How do you know your understanding is correct?

 

[FireDragon76]

Perhaps, but I think "American" also used to be a much more exclusive category in most people's minds.

I mean, what exactly does it mean that we're all American? What's the content of that? What do we have in common to unite around?

Various degrees of shared misery combined with interdependence. If we choose an ethical path for life, that means having compassion and solidarity with fellow human beings, and those most immediate to us happen to be Americans.

 

[Hammster]

Not exactly. Believing the Gospel is not a problem for me as I am a Christian already, but literal inerrancy is right out--it is contrary to the teachings of my church to require it, if nothing else--and being required to give lip service to it just to placate the belligerence of a religious minority would be intolerable in a secular republic where freedom of religion is guaranteed.

So your church has more authority than scripture? Where do they get that authority?

 

[FireDragon76]

How do you know your understanding is correct?

I don't in an absolute sense, I merely have reasonable confidence and hold my beliefs provisionally. I am open to correction. However, I have seen insufficient evidence that would imply I was wrong.

The Ven. Thitch Nhat Hanh, the founder of the order in which I studied Buddhism, articulated 14 rules for spiritual training, two of which I think are most pertinent, and wise:

The First Mindfulness Training: Openness

Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as a guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic or discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and the world.

The Second Mindfulness Training: Non-Attachment to Views
Aware of the suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, we are determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. We are committed to learning and practicing non-attachment to views and being open to others’ experiences and insights in order to benefit from the collective wisdom. We are aware that the knowledge we presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Insight is revealed through the practice of compassionate listening, deep looking, and letting go of notions rather than through the accumulation of intellectual knowledge. Truth is found in life, and we will observe life within and around us in every moment, ready to learn throughout our lives.

 

[FireDragon76]

So your church has more authority than scripture? Where do they get that authority?

Why does his church need a presumed external authority? It traces its lineage back to the early church through an unbroken chain of succession of laying on of hands.

No doubt, he has confidence in his religious community to meet his spiritual needs and guide him. That's sufficient.

You see, the Evangelical notion we must have utter certainty in spiritual matters is unreasonable and unwarranted. Billions of people have made do throughout history without it, and intellectually and spiritually it is quite inferior to simply learning how to emotionally regulate and manage ones own expectations, to accept the inevitable hardships and mysteries of life with equanimity.

 

[Speedwell]

So your church has more authority than scripture? Where do they get that authority?

I take my church as having more authority than your interpretation of scripture.

 

[Taodeching]

What do we have in common to unite around?

Right now I fear little if nothing as the left tries to destroy the country and the Constitution along with the rule of law. The left is the destroyer of worlds

 

[FireDragon76]

Right now I fear little if nothing as the left tries to destroy the country and the Constitution

The Left weren't the ones trying to overthrow the rule of law at the Capitol on December 6th.

Lone citizens with idiosyncratic and uninformed opinions are not interpreters of the Constitution. That's why we have courts. And they saw no merit to Trump's false claims about the election.

 

[Speedwell]

Right now I fear little if nothing as the left tries to destroy the country and the Constitution

I am under the impression that "The Left" sees itself as rescuing the country and the Constitution.

 

[Vylo]

Right now I fear little if nothing as the left tries to destroy the country and the Constitution along with the rule of law. The left is the destroyer of worlds

I really hope this is satire, after 4 years of a GOP president doing his best to defecate all over the constitution, as well as rule of law.

There was a literal insurrection, and attack on our constitution and the rule of law itself. It wasn't by the left. It was by Trump and his cult. They actually attacked our nation, and many are being arrested for it as we speak, thankfully.

 

[durangodawood]

I take my church as having more authority than your interpretation of scripture.

People think their interpretation of scripture IS scripture, while everyone else are the ones doing interpretation.