diversity and tolerance

[Orlion]

You know, I've decided to test your assertation about biologists and have questioned bona fide biologists (which are plentiful on a college campus). None of them seem to say what you say they say. None of them say that life is proof of a designer, or anything else. To tell you the truth, the only people I've talked to that say this are not bona fide biologists at all... they're people who dabble in certain areas of science looking for proof to a conclusion that they've all ready accepted. That's a logical fallacy and is in no way a search for any sort of objective truth.

Also, let's not forget Richard Dawkins is a bona fide biologist, and he obviously seems to disagree on many of your points (I'm not going to say all, I don't know his position on things like, say, abortion).

That being said, it doesn't matter. You're able to draw your own conclusions, and I'm able to draw mine exactly because of the principle of tolerance (the one you seem to oppose) that I expounded on earlier. You were tolerated to develope your views as I was tolerated to develope my views. Those of dissenting opinion may have tried to persuade us, but they haven't used (or at least succeeded) in using force to make us accept 'X'. Without that principle, your worldview may very well not have existed.

Well, when you start by expressing my thoughts incorrectly, it's not a surprise that you'll get a different result. I didn't say "proof of a designer" (even though I do also think that to be the case - it is proof according to the criteria that I accept). Check what I actually said.
I agree with what you say on fallacy - I just think that works for unbelievers as well as believers - in fact. more so.

If you speak of "the purpose" of a thing, then you may be trying to say "purpose with a meaning" or "purpose without meaning". The latter is just plain illogical. As soon as anyone, formal biologist or not, begins speaking of "the purpose of genitals" or whatever, they are already, whether they consciously intend to or not, assuming meaning. That, to me, can only mean design. But I'll let that last point go because so many of you do not see that. The point I WON'T let go of is that you can't one minute speak of the purpose of anything, and then the next deny that it has a purpose. If eyes, ears, or genitals "have a purpose", then we must admit that, and THAT is what any self-respecting biologist must admit. Having admitted that, they must then admit that homosexual behavior is contrary to that natural use (purpose).

Also, it is conceivable that my viewpoint exists only because it has been "tolerated". But it is equally conceivable that it exists because it is the truth - in which case it wouldn't matter whether it were "tolerated" or not, any more than the failure of the Catholic Church to tolerate Galileo in the 16th century affected what we believe to actually be the case today.

Richard Dawkins is no doubt a biologist - what he is ignorant on is religion - he doesn't know the thing of which he speaks - or more accurately, he has familiarized himself to a degree with the more primitive versions, and has learned little to nothing about the histories of either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, let alone their theology, and he is evidently completely ignorant of apologetics as well. For the same reason Bertrand Russell and similar thinkers also disqualify themselves. If you're going to rail against something, for heaven's sake learn the best that your opponents have to offer and defeat that!

I need a large-size image with the circle and line through it saying "No scarecrows!" Can anyone oblige?

My apologies on misunderstanding your position, but hey, if I didn't mess up, I wouldn't be corrected, huh?
For the sake of refining language, would you also say that "function" has the same meaning as "purpose"? I do agree that "purpose" implies intent, but I don't think function does. For example: the purpose of the eye is to see could imply that it was intentionally made as a seeing instrument. However, saying the function of the eye is to transmit various changes in photorecceptors to the brain implies only what the eye does, not that there is any intent (though it definately doesn't rule it out).

As far as Dawkibs is concerned, I don't care much for his views on religion for about the same reason as you don't. Sometimes his theological arguments are laughably devoid of any substance. However, if he speaks as a biologist, I think then that his words have value, since he is an authority on the subject.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

You example of Dick and Miss Bates has one problem....the assumption that being "under new management" will improve things. And if it doesn't, the excuse (I've heard it many times from Christians, it seems highly logical you would say the same, if I am incorrect, by all means say so) is that their conversion/acceptance of Christ was not really sincere. That make sit untestable. It's an interesting assertion, but unsupported by evidence. And negative evidence is automatically discounted.

Thanks for taking the time to read that quoted text! (I think it's better to read the whole book. It's a fairly easy read, but the ideas may be shocking to one who had never encountered them.)

Right now, though, I am not talking about science or the scientific method and what can be "proved" - and the person who has made that the only way that they can accept any truth is deeply impoverished, ignoring the basis on which the scientific method developed - as ONE of the ways to arrive at truth, not the only way. Hope I don't need to reference metaphysics and ontology here to get that across.

It's also quite unclear from start to finish how you could measure that in others. You would need to a) that they had actually and fully submitted themselves to the faith and b) exactly what is wrong, and to what extent. You can really only know that about yourself. Have you ever fully submitted yourself to faith? If not, how can you speak of what it "proves" or not?

Finally, one of the things we learn in Christianity is that we were unaware of just how "dirty", or messed-up, we are. The person who does really submit himself is very likely to discover that many more things were wrong than he first suspected, and to a much greater degree. As I learn, that not only seducing women is actually evil, but that the evil starts in my thoughts, when I undress them in my mind, or that what I ascribed to (what I thought was) my good temper is actually very superficial, and if that is really tested my "good temper" folds like an accordion. These are things that are difficult to communicate to, let alone glean from others, and cannot be subjected to scientific tests, any more than the love of your girlfriend/wife can be.

Hope that helps!

Rus--

I was raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod to be even more precise). I became an atheist at age 10. I had too many questions that no one at the church could answer in a rational manner. Prior to that, however, I was VERY devout. Daily prayers, Bible reading, Honor roll at Sunday School and vacation Bible School, etc., etc. When those beliefs were challenged, they had no support, and fell apart. I had TRULY submitted myself to my faith.

I had some experiences which my atheist, completely scientific world view could NOT explain. I started rediscovering spirituality, and recently in fact found a faith. I'm not Christian...but I am deeply aware of many of my own shortcomings, and work to be better every day...and I listen to others, who see things about me I may not notice (or not WANT to notice) about myself. I truly, deeply believe that I am a better person (in terms of morality/ethicality) than if I had stayed Christian. I'm not saying non-Christians are more ethical/moral. I'm saying that applying my psychology training to make a probable comparison, I am a better person this way.

But none of this (better or worse) can be proven, nor can the veracity of submittal to faith be quantified....so this boils down to "I think X".."Well, I think Y"...absent proof, that's all there CAN be. No one on here (that I'm aware of) wants your X forbidden....simply kept with similar Xs.

--edit for clarity--

by "kept with" I simply mean kept OUT of government/public usage, and in school taught in elective philosophy class...not presented as "The Truth", but presented as "many people believe this is The Truth...and many other people believe *other faith* is The Truth...we will examine all of these belief systems"

Yeah, overly idealistic, I know...fundies (a term which I do NOT apply to you Rus) will ignore it, as will over-zealous "Champions of Mental Freedom" from the opposite side of the spectrum.

[rusmeister]

Rus--

You example of Dick and Miss Bates has one problem....the assumption that being "under new management" will improve things. And if it doesn't, the excuse (I've heard it many times from Christians, it seems highly logical you would say the same, if I am incorrect, by all means say so) is that their conversion/acceptance of Christ was not really sincere. That make sit untestable. It's an interesting assertion, but unsupported by evidence. And negative evidence is automatically discounted.

Thanks for taking the time to read that quoted text! (I think it's better to read the whole book. It's a fairly easy read, but the ideas may be shocking to one who had never encountered them.)

Right now, though, I am not talking about science or the scientific method and what can be "proved" - and the person who has made that the only way that they can accept any truth is deeply impoverished, ignoring the basis on which the scientific method developed - as ONE of the ways to arrive at truth, not the only way. Hope I don't need to reference metaphysics and ontology here to get that across.

It's also quite unclear from start to finish how you could measure that in others. You would need to a) that they had actually and fully submitted themselves to the faith and b) exactly what is wrong, and to what extent. You can really only know that about yourself. Have you ever fully submitted yourself to faith? If not, how can you speak of what it "proves" or not?

Finally, one of the things we learn in Christianity is that we were unaware of just how "dirty", or messed-up, we are. The person who does really submit himself is very likely to discover that many more things were wrong than he first suspected, and to a much greater degree. As I learn, that not only seducing women is actually evil, but that the evil starts in my thoughts, when I undress them in my mind, or that what I ascribed to (what I thought was) my good temper is actually very superficial, and if that is really tested my "good temper" folds like an accordion. These are things that are difficult to communicate to, let alone glean from others, and cannot be subjected to scientific tests, any more than the love of your girlfriend/wife can be.

Hope that helps!

Rus--

I was raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod to be even more precise). I became an atheist at age 10. I had too many questions that no one at the church could answer in a rational manner. Prior to that, however, I was VERY devout. Daily prayers, Bible reading, Honor roll at Sunday School and vacation Bible School, etc., etc. When those beliefs were challenged, they had no support, and fell apart. I had TRULY submitted myself to my faith.

I had some experiences which my atheist, completely scientific world view could NOT explain. I started rediscovering spirituality, and recently in fact found a faith. I'm not Christian...but I am deeply aware of many of my own shortcomings, and work to be better every day...and I listen to others, who see things about me I may not notice (or not WANT to notice) about myself. I truly, deeply believe that I am a better person (in terms of morality/ethicality) than if I had stayed Christian. I'm not saying non-Christians are more ethical/moral. I'm saying that applying my psychology training to make a probable comparison, I am a better person this way.

But none of this (better or worse) can be proven, nor can the veracity of submittal to faith be quantified....so this boils down to "I think X".."Well, I think Y"...absent proof, that's all there CAN be. No one on here (that I'm aware of) wants your X forbidden....simply kept with similar Xs.

--edit for clarity--

by "kept with" I simply mean kept OUT of government/public usage, and in school taught in elective philosophy class...not presented as "The Truth", but presented as "many people believe this is The Truth...and many other people believe *other faith* is The Truth...we will examine all of these belief systems"

Yeah, overly idealistic, I know...fundies (a term which I do NOT apply to you Rus) will ignore it, as will over-zealous "Champions of Mental Freedom" from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Hi, 7W, and thank you!
First of all, I can not seriously consider that the understanding of a child of ten or less can be seriously considered as truly understanding a faith - where I consider that one cannot speak about it with little or no knowledge of its history, theology or apologetics. One of my biggest complaints is about people who had a child's experience of faith and then grew up and left it - they simply did/do not understand what they are/were leaving, and yet they have opinions - minus the knowledge I cited. It's like thinking that one understands everything they need to about public schools by virtue of the fact that they attended one - minus the knowledge of history, organization, practical operations - all the behind the curtains stuff, but especially the history. Most people just don't know the thing they are proposing to change or reform.

On keeping things out, freedom of conscience and religion has come to be interpreted as freedom from religion. This amounts to a right to believe what you want so long as you never communicate those beliefs or attempt to put them into practice. It is, as I said, the right to believe whatever you want, because what you believe doesn't matter. It does not reflect truth that also affects me. This runs into a problem with any belief that holds itself to be actually true and that does matter and does affect everyone universally. There is an unresolvable contradiction. Is truth personal/individual, or universal? To me the answer is simple: as soon as I pose the question "Did the universe form in one specific manner, or in as many ways as people have beliefs?" That, for me, ends the whole debate. Since there is such specific and universal truth, a denial of its very existence, whether we know it or not - or an insistence that it cannot be known are both hostile to the idea that it can be known - and transmitted.

There is no such thing as "overly idealistic". If you have an ideal, that is the thing you should always keep in mind and work towards. Practical without ideal is action without thought.

[rusmeister]

My apologies on misunderstanding your position, but hey, if I didn't mess up, I wouldn't be corrected, huh?
For the sake of refining language, would you also say that "function" has the same meaning as "purpose"? I do agree that "purpose" implies intent, but I don't think function does. For example: the purpose of the eye is to see could imply that it was intentionally made as a seeing instrument. However, saying the function of the eye is to transmit various changes in photorecceptors to the brain implies only what the eye does, not that there is any intent (though it definately doesn't rule it out).

Actually, I still wouldn't say the words are the same - because "function" can be taken to mean "whatever a thing is used for" - and one could use ones eye socket to open a bottle of beer - but that is certainly not the purpose of the eye socket. So it is necessary to hold to the biological purpose. I'm not talking about anything else. Once that is admitted, it is obvious to anyone with any common sense at all that homosexual behavior defies the purpose of the genitals.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, I don't care much for his views on religion for about the same reason as you don't. Sometimes his theological arguments are laughably devoid of any substance. However, if he speaks as a biologist, I think then that his words have value, since he is an authority on the subject.

Well when he speaks about biology, then maybe you should listen to him - but AFAIK, he is famous for his anti-God ranting, not his biological work - certainly on the scale of world fame. The thing apparently driving him is hatred of faith - above all, the Christian faith. When one calls an idea held by nearly all of humanity throughout history merely a delusion, the odds that they are actually deluded and one is not is rather small (non-existent, imo).

[rusmeister]

The difference is that you want to force everyone to not do what you don't like.

You want to force your views onto everyone.

So. Do. You. You just don't call it "forcing" when it involves things you think should be taught/believed (ie, actually true). Need I offer the example of teaching that rape is evil? (Something which cannot be scientifically verified and would not approve of experiments in.) We agree that such things should be forced. You just don't talk that way about something you DO believe to be true.

A caveat – not every word I say is the official position of the Orthodox Church – the Church doesn’t have teachings on some of these points, and so we, as individuals, are free to hold opinions. I’ll try to help keep that distinction, but will likely fail to point that out from time to time. (My views on education, for example – acquired as a professional via experience and learning.)

FWIW, I do believe that people should learn about the major world religions. They should be educated - aware of the basic ideas of the ones that have survived - the ones that do have huge pieces of the truth by any reasonable consideration. I just don't believe they should be taught as a potpourri of competing ideas that are all the fullness of the truth or equal to it. I say that they are closer to or further away from that fullness.

Another thing – I do speak about pluralism as it is enacted as a practical ideology, for the most part, and this is what I am most concerned with. However, I think the thing that your ideal has in common with that cannot be ignored, and I expressed it in my response to 7W:

freedom of conscience and religion has come to be interpreted as freedom from religion. This amounts to a right to believe what you want so long as you never communicate those beliefs or attempt to put them into practice. It is, as I said, the right to believe whatever you want, because what you believe doesn't matter. It does not reflect truth that also affects me. This runs into a problem with any belief that holds itself to be actually true and that does matter and does affect everyone universally.

Any system you attempt to construct is going to take a philosophical position – yours does, too – it just doesn’t want to talk about it (which is the case in public education and in public life in general today).
That is why it is vain to speak of your version of pluralism – we could discuss it as theory, but it is not, in fact, what is actually in practice, and the primary problem (described in my quote) still remains. It is a fact that as this “freedom of homosexuality” expands, a corresponding infringement on the freedom of Christians to not recognize this as a “freedom” is also expanding. And in the end, I don’t see how your own position could possibly prevent a decision being made in public life, which must distinguish between two mutually exclusive positions and choose one as policy. I, of necessity, usually include most or all of what is called Christianity in regards to that, because most people are not Orthodox, or at least to the maximum extent that continues to teach the morality that Christianity has always taught.


I think you’d admit that you’ve exaggerated my position when you say

But you insist that only by reading everything of Chesterton can I be said to have given your writers a chance.

I do think you haven’t read enough of him. He is a many-sided writer, of which you have read a little of one of the sides (the apologetic one). To get an idea of the breadth of the man, you really need an overview:
chesterton.org/
The stuff in the first and third columns can provide that overview. You won’t agree with all of it, but when you see that there really is a poet, a historian, a critic, an essayist, and even a playwright, you’d have to admit that there is a lot you haven’t seen – too much to possibly be able to think you’ve gotten a grasp of him – even by reading TEM. Indeed, I suspect that your problem in understanding him is that you attempted his most mature work without getting the context that led him there. I started from “Orthodoxy”, a much earlier work, and much easier to grasp – and I had to read him very slowly and scratch my head for the first several books. Once I did get his drift, it became easy. But it seems you have some of the same difficulties in understanding me.

It’s not that I find insult in the disagreement – it’s a sense of futility and a tremendous waste of time. I have to lay out things that took me years to get to. Before I ever read GKC, I had already been prepared by CS Lewis, who you do have some grasp of (but probably not enough) Mere Christianity is a great popular work, and Miracles is a deep and heavy-duty work, but it’s not enough to say you “know Lewis. You really have to have read a major portion of his bibliography. With Chesterton, because he wrote so much, I’d grant authoritative knowledge of him at 40-50% of his books, and maybe 5% of his essays. I don’t want you to despair – I just want to get across that you cannot think that you’ve gotten all the exposure you need to be able to say “I know him”. It’s the problem of Adam Gopnik, who writes authoritatively in the New Yorker on GKC – while clearly not having read the man to the extent I describe, and giving everyone erroneous conclusions about him. (The anti-Semite charge is particularly tiresome.)

Your last paragraph I think the most important. I agree that reason will likely convert very few (I happen to be in that few, and in my experience, it is something that does not bring many to faith. As GKC said,

Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.

Twelve Types (1903) Charles II

I guess I’d say that reason is my strong suit, and joy and emotion are weak suits (and I wish it were otherwise). I feel the strongest affinity to apologetics, and the one thing that I hope my presence on the Watch has worked to dispel, around here, at any rate, is the idea that faith and reason are incompatible.
But I agree that people respond more to the kind of joy that Tracie expressed, and I regret that I am not very good at it. But I still would not start such a thread as you propose, and the reason is that Tracie already did – and as much as you admired it, it did not bring you to her faith. I object to “celebrating” faiths. I call for embracing or rejecting them. ‘Admiring’ them, while treating them as irrelevant to the truth, is despicable. If she didn’t do it for you, what hope do I have – who do not hold a candle to her in that particular aspect of life – and such an attractive one, the one Lewis called “sehnsucht”? I’ll gladly share my story with you – but I refuse to “celebrate” it as something to be admired and then forgotten, as if it were a work of art or music. It is the absolute Truth – the real, genuine and only explanation of our lives and the meaning of our existence – no less, and I cannot and will not approach it in any other way.
Maybe that’s the one good thing I can do – Tracie gave you the thing to desire about the Christian faith (as much as we differed on how it is understood); maybe the thing I can give you is the uncompromising aspect of the faith – it is not open to compromise or merely being dissolved in a solution of world faiths.

As to my story – it is just one story. There are a million ways of coming to faith. Mine is no more special than any others. I offer the writers that taught me, and seethe at the things I have the most difficulty learning – and see the problem as in me, not in the faith.

Also, I'd like to apologize - when I read your posts, a hundred things come to mind that I want to say - and I can't seem to be able to get down more than a dozen. (Hopefully you'll take as complement that it takes more time to respond to your posts.)

Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.

[Avatar]

The difference is that you want to force everyone to not do what you don't like.

You want to force your views onto everyone.

So. Do. You. You just don't call it "forcing" when it involves things you think should be taught/believed (ie, actually true). Need I offer the example of teaching that rape is evil? (Something which cannot be scientifically verified and would not approve of experiments in.) We agree that such things should be forced. You just don't talk that way about something you DO believe to be true.

Rape is a quantifiable harm. I don't think it's analogous at all.

--A

[rusmeister]

The difference is that you want to force everyone to not do what you don't like.

You want to force your views onto everyone.

So. Do. You. You just don't call it "forcing" when it involves things you think should be taught/believed (ie, actually true). Need I offer the example of teaching that rape is evil? (Something which cannot be scientifically verified and would not approve of experiments in.) We agree that such things should be forced. You just don't talk that way about something you DO believe to be true.

Rape is a quantifiable harm. I don't think it's analogous at all.

--A

Doesn't matter. You just don't talk that way about something you DO believe to be true.

[Fist and Faith]

The difference is that you want to force everyone to not do what you don't like.

You want to force your views onto everyone.

So. Do. You. You just don't call it "forcing" when it involves things you think should be taught/believed (ie, actually true).

I want to force everyone to live in a world where everyone has access to as much information as possible, and everyone can make choices.

You want to pick and choose what information everyone has access to, take away our ability to choose, and force everyone to do what you think is the right thing to do.

You may as well say it's the same thing to not help a family plow their field and grow food, and to shoot them.

(No time to read more at the moment. I'll be back. heh)

[rusmeister]

The difference is that you want to force everyone to not do what you don't like.

You want to force your views onto everyone.

So. Do. You. You just don't call it "forcing" when it involves things you think should be taught/believed (ie, actually true).

I want to force everyone to live in a world where everyone has access to as much information as possible, and everyone can make choices.

You want to pick and choose what information everyone has access to, take away our ability to choose, and force everyone to do what you think is the right thing to do.

You may as well say it's the same thing to not help a family plow their field and grow food, and to shoot them.

(No time to read more at the moment. I'll be back. heh)

If the information is false, then where is the virtue? If one would teach, for example, that one need not fear sexually transmitted diseases, and THAT is thrown into the "information" that you would have people free to choose, then it is obviously not good. If it results in something irreversible, then it is not even possible to "learn from mistakes". If it is fatal, then it doesn;t matter at all what you wanted.

But take away ability to choose? No. That's one step too far. I can't even force my own children to accept my faith. But I can give them the right information, so that when their hormones, peer pressure and everything else are tugging them in the wrong direction, they will at least be armed with the truth. You can understand that on a physical level; I hold that the same is true on the metaphysical level. Sexual immorality DOES lead to irreversible damage - even though you can't perceive it physically. Etc.

I would tell them what is true, what is false, why, and let them see for themselves beyond that. I wouldn't let them build the opposite of the truth in my own society, but if they wanted to leave it and go elsewhere they could. The difference between your idea and mine is that I admit that I am insisting on true ideals. The pluralist denies the theory while still putting it into practice. You say, like I do, that "this is what I believe everybody should do" - only I admit that that is what I say.

And there's that word "force" again. Tsk, tsk.

[Fist and Faith]

I think I'll have to bow out of our conversations again. Don't know how long it will last this time. God knows I've tried before. I never last, because I don't like the idea of you saying the things you do, and not having someone speak out in opposition. Maybe it doesn't matter. I don't know.

But I know I can't take it any longer at this point. I know I'll never make you understand so many things. And I'm coming too close to saying things I don't want to say. Things that are more insult than attempts to... Whatever. Best to just say we disagree on the first step of every single chain of thought. Because we do. I never imagined it was possible to such a degree. I never imagined there could be a human being who is so very far removed from anything that I consider to be logical and rational. I'm not meaning that as insult, because I know you feel the same way about me. It's cool. Heh. But it boggles the mind. We have nothing, literally nothing, on which to base an actual conversation and exchange of ideas.

But, by all means, carry on! Others don't go on as much as I do, but you can still have at it with a few folks here. Hehe.

*shakes head and walks slowly away...*

[Orlion]

I can be the opposition! Here, I'll start now.

Rus, Nah-uh!

[Orlion]

I think the real disconnect is this: one assumes that a party is for complete coercion and against choice. That is not the case. I think (and am certain to be corrected if wrong) that Rus' "objective morality", in his viewpoint, are sort of ideals that if followed ought to avoid misery and obtain happiness and/or contentment (with the added bonus of obtaining a joyous afterlife). He doesn't think that one ought to be forced to follow these ideals, but to obtain happiness, one has to follow them. It's kinda like if I want to make chocolate chip cookies, I will only succeed if I follow a recipie. I can choose to throw random herbs into cream, but I would not succeed in making what I desired. That can only be accomplished by following the recipie.

This analogy, then, flows into what I think Fist is getting at, which is there are many different recipies for chocolate chip cookies. Some people like soft, others hard, some flat, some thick. People can follow different recipies to get what they want. Hence, what may work as a perfect "recipie" for life for one person, may not be the one another needs to follow to get their desires. Aristotle once said to some effect that we act in order to obtain happiness. To get that, we all need to work for it, but not in the same way since happiness takes on a myrid number of forms.

The rest are just off topic

[Seven Words]

Hi, 7W, and thank you!
First of all, I can not seriously consider that the understanding of a child of ten or less can be seriously considered as truly understanding a faith - where I consider that one cannot speak about it with little or no knowledge of its history, theology or apologetics. One of my biggest complaints is about people who had a child's experience of faith and then grew up and left it - they simply did/do not understand what they are/were leaving, and yet they have opinions - minus the knowledge I cited. It's like thinking that one understands everything they need to about public schools by virtue of the fact that they attended one - minus the knowledge of history, organization, practical operations - all the behind the curtains stuff, but especially the history. Most people just don't know the thing they are proposing to change or reform.

On keeping things out, freedom of conscience and religion has come to be interpreted as freedom from religion. This amounts to a right to believe what you want so long as you never communicate those beliefs or attempt to put them into practice. It is, as I said, the right to believe whatever you want, because what you believe doesn't matter. It does not reflect truth that also affects me. This runs into a problem with any belief that holds itself to be actually true and that does matter and does affect everyone universally. There is an unresolvable contradiction. Is truth personal/individual, or universal? To me the answer is simple: as soon as I pose the question "Did the universe form in one specific manner, or in as many ways as people have beliefs?" That, for me, ends the whole debate. Since there is such specific and universal truth, a denial of its very existence, whether we know it or not - or an insistence that it cannot be known are both hostile to the idea that it can be known - and transmitted.

There is no such thing as "overly idealistic". If you have an ideal, that is the thing you should always keep in mind and work towards. Practical without ideal is action without thought.

When I had my personal subjective experiences I mentioned earlier, I did re-examine the faith was raised in. The purported "answers" to the questions I had then were much more complex and verbiose.....but no better.

"Did the universe form in one specific manner?" The only evidence (meaning objective, repeatable) on hand supports the belief that the Universe formed without any divine intervention. I personally believe that the impetus which CAUSED the Big Bang was divine. But how all the stars formed, life began, how humanity came to exist, etc. ,etc., is pure science. Why humanity exists (outside of the biological evolutionary answer) is the province of faith.

And by "overly idealistic", I meant unworkable in the real world. A goal to aspire to, but accepting the low, VERY LOW, probability of it happening.

[rusmeister]

I think I'll have to bow out of our conversations again. Don't know how long it will last this time. God knows I've tried before. I never last, because I don't like the idea of you saying the things you do, and not having someone speak out in opposition. Maybe it doesn't matter. I don't know.

But I know I can't take it any longer at this point. I know I'll never make you understand so many things. And I'm coming too close to saying things I don't want to say. Things that are more insult than attempts to... Whatever. Best to just say we disagree on the first step of every single chain of thought. Because we do. I never imagined it was possible to such a degree. I never imagined there could be a human being who is so very far removed from anything that I consider to be logical and rational. I'm not meaning that as insult, because I know you feel the same way about me. It's cool. Heh. But it boggles the mind. We have nothing, literally nothing, on which to base an actual conversation and exchange of ideas.

But, by all means, carry on! Others don't go on as much as I do, but you can still have at it with a few folks here. Hehe.

*shakes head and walks slowly away...*

Hey, Fist.
It may really be best to drop out.
One thing I think I should make sure to stress is that I have been speaking about what I would do if I were king; if I could really form how a fallen human society ought to be shaped. That is what I would do; it is not the Church's formula of what to do, which is much more practical and calls for the conversion of individuals; for the individual to turn away from self as god and conform to what God actually wants. And that cannot be achieved by any force.

I do greatly appreciate your willingness to tolerate and attempt to understand such strange ideas as mine - for they ARE strange - but I'd say that that is because it is the world that has become bent, whereas I have been undergoing some straightening out. (But neither is that process perfected, so again, I'd point you (probably above all) to Men' and Schmemann, rather than myself.)

Believe it or not, I actually do respect you.

[rusmeister]

I think the real disconnect is this: one assumes that a party is for complete coercion and against choice. That is not the case. I think (and am certain to be corrected if wrong) that Rus' "objective morality", in his viewpoint, are sort of ideals that if followed ought to avoid misery and obtain happiness and/or contentment (with the added bonus of obtaining a joyous afterlife). He doesn't think that one ought to be forced to follow these ideals, but to obtain happiness, one has to follow them. It's kinda like if I want to make chocolate chip cookies, I will only succeed if I follow a recipie. I can choose to throw random herbs into cream, but I would not succeed in making what I desired. That can only be accomplished by following the recipie.

This analogy, then, flows into what I think Fist is getting at, which is there are many different recipies for chocolate chip cookies. Some people like soft, others hard, some flat, some thick. People can follow different recipies to get what they want. Hence, what may work as a perfect "recipie" for life for one person, may not be the one another needs to follow to get their desires. Aristotle once said to some effect that we act in order to obtain happiness. To get that, we all need to work for it, but not in the same way since happiness takes on a myriad number of forms.

The rest are just off topic

Hi Orlion, and thanks!
I'll take your analogy and raise you two Tollhouse cookies! (inside Orthodox joke*)
I understand your description of Fist's position. I merely don't accept it.
What I believe is that everyone else's formula for happiness will not result in chocolate chip cookies - or any other kind of palatable cookie - at all. What they think is a sweet spice is something, that when cooked, turns out to be poisonous.

I further do not think that Fist intends or supports any coercion. I think that the practical result of the worldview results in coercion, on the principle of incompatibility of mutually exclusive proposals.

The Christian sees the happiness to be attained as eternal happiness - not merely that which passes after a few years and ends in our deaths. Thus, one may never attain happiness in this life and still hope for it - and may hope for "islands" of happiness along the way. But all earthly hopes must eventually, as Lewis said, be flattened out. All ends in the death of all. That concept must be understood first before one proceeds to the true hopefulness of Christianity.

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_toll_house

[rusmeister]

Hi, 7W, and thank you!
First of all, I can not seriously consider that the understanding of a child of ten or less can be seriously considered as truly understanding a faith - where I consider that one cannot speak about it with little or no knowledge of its history, theology or apologetics. One of my biggest complaints is about people who had a child's experience of faith and then grew up and left it - they simply did/do not understand what they are/were leaving, and yet they have opinions - minus the knowledge I cited. It's like thinking that one understands everything they need to about public schools by virtue of the fact that they attended one - minus the knowledge of history, organization, practical operations - all the behind the curtains stuff, but especially the history. Most people just don't know the thing they are proposing to change or reform.

On keeping things out, freedom of conscience and religion has come to be interpreted as freedom from religion. This amounts to a right to believe what you want so long as you never communicate those beliefs or attempt to put them into practice. It is, as I said, the right to believe whatever you want, because what you believe doesn't matter. It does not reflect truth that also affects me. This runs into a problem with any belief that holds itself to be actually true and that does matter and does affect everyone universally. There is an unresolvable contradiction. Is truth personal/individual, or universal? To me the answer is simple: as soon as I pose the question "Did the universe form in one specific manner, or in as many ways as people have beliefs?" That, for me, ends the whole debate. Since there is such specific and universal truth, a denial of its very existence, whether we know it or not - or an insistence that it cannot be known are both hostile to the idea that it can be known - and transmitted.

There is no such thing as "overly idealistic". If you have an ideal, that is the thing you should always keep in mind and work towards. Practical without ideal is action without thought.

When I had my personal subjective experiences I mentioned earlier, I did re-examine the faith was raised in. The purported "answers" to the questions I had then were much more complex and verbiose.....but no better.

I do sympathize with this - because I myself was raised in what I now see to be an inferior tradition. The Baptists, like most denominations born of the "Reformation" depend on personal interpretation of Scripture without reference to the Tradition of historical Christianity - and so their answers indeed are shallow and do not compare with what I have since discovered.

"Did the universe form in one specific manner?" The only evidence (meaning objective, repeatable) on hand supports the belief that the Universe formed without any divine intervention. I personally believe that the impetus which CAUSED the Big Bang was divine. But how all the stars formed, life began, how humanity came to exist, etc. ,etc., is pure science. Why humanity exists (outside of the biological evolutionary answer) is the province of faith.

And by "overly idealistic", I meant unworkable in the real world. A goal to aspire to, but accepting the low, VERY LOW, probability of it happening.

I applaud your acknowledgment of divine impetus. My priest - a highly intelligent man and student (in the most direct sense) of Alexander Men' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Men embraces that view.

But your idea that the evidence supporting theory of evolution somehow indicates that it could not have been brought about by an omnipotent Being is extraordinary, - I would say cannot be scientifically proven, for many reasons, the first of which is that it is a metaphysical inquiry.
In any event, why humanity exists is a question entirely outside the realm of what the physical sciences can answer. So yes, faith - in the proposal of divine revelation (something entirely possible and that cannot be disproven) is the basis for accepting belief in God -and furthermore, I can grasp why He made it so.

The problem in the modern world is that it attempts to operate while avoiding ideals altogether. Perhaps in an extremely romantic society a stronger emphasis might need to be made on practicality (which merely means "doing something"), but in our age, cynicism rules, and there is no doubt that what we need is idealism. We need a definite formation of what actually is ideal and open discussion and thought on that - not an avoidance of it.

[Seven Words]

I applaud your acknowledgment of divine impetus. My priest - a highly intelligent man and student (in the most direct sense) of Alexander Men' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Men embraces that view.

But your idea that the evidence supporting theory of evolution somehow indicates that it could not have been brought about by an omnipotent Being is extraordinary, - I would say cannot be scientifically proven, for many reasons, the first of which is that it is a metaphysical inquiry.
In any event, why humanity exists is a question entirely outside the realm of what the physical sciences can answer. So yes, faith - in the proposal of divine revelation (something entirely possible and that cannot be disproven) is the basis for accepting belief in God -and furthermore, I can grasp why He made it so.

The problem in the modern world is that it attempts to operate while avoiding ideals altogether. Perhaps in an extremely romantic society a stronger emphasis might need to be made on practicality (which merely means "doing something"), but in our age, cynicism rules, and there is no doubt that what we need is idealism. We need a definite formation of what actually is ideal and open discussion and thought on that - not an avoidance of it.

You misunderstood me...I'm not saying evolution could not have been brought about by a Divine Creator...I'm simply saying that the evidence on hand makes one unnecessary.

I agree completely with your last statement (What a shock!). However, I see that society "needs" (my choice of words, not stating an objective absolute) to forge a compromise amongst the many, many different versions of what is ideal held by the citizens without being coercive and respecting individual conscience and choice. I.e., I think well attended churches (in the loosest sense, I mean a gathering of people of a common faith...could be Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Asatru) are a wonderful support for the community and society, but for government to be involved with/influenced by any church is reprehensible, and creates conditions predisposed towards tyranny.

[rusmeister]

I applaud your acknowledgment of divine impetus. My priest - a highly intelligent man and student (in the most direct sense) of Alexander Men' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Men embraces that view.

But your idea that the evidence supporting theory of evolution somehow indicates that it could not have been brought about by an omnipotent Being is extraordinary, - I would say cannot be scientifically proven, for many reasons, the first of which is that it is a metaphysical inquiry.
In any event, why humanity exists is a question entirely outside the realm of what the physical sciences can answer. So yes, faith - in the proposal of divine revelation (something entirely possible and that cannot be disproven) is the basis for accepting belief in God -and furthermore, I can grasp why He made it so.

The problem in the modern world is that it attempts to operate while avoiding ideals altogether. Perhaps in an extremely romantic society a stronger emphasis might need to be made on practicality (which merely means "doing something"), but in our age, cynicism rules, and there is no doubt that what we need is idealism. We need a definite formation of what actually is ideal and open discussion and thought on that - not an avoidance of it.

You misunderstood me...I'm not saying evolution could not have been brought about by a Divine Creator...I'm simply saying that the evidence on hand makes one unnecessary.

Thanks!
Your restatement makes your idea much clearer.
Misunderstanding on electronic forums is a highly probable phenomenon.
(That ties in with what I was saying earlier about the need for precise language.)

I agree completely with your last statement (What a shock!). However, I see that society "needs" (my choice of words, not stating an objective absolute) to forge a compromise amongst the many, many different versions of what is ideal held by the citizens without being coercive and respecting individual conscience and choice. I.e., I think well attended churches (in the loosest sense, I mean a gathering of people of a common faith...could be Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Asatru) are a wonderful support for the community and society, but for government to be involved with/influenced by any church is reprehensible, and creates conditions predisposed towards tyranny.

I sympathize with your statement, but see problems. The first is on the idea of compromise. In order for a society to be viable, it must share, above all, a common philosophy. If it does not, then effective laws cannot be passed or enforced, and you have essential anarchy. Authority is based on specific propositions that are held to be true, whether they include "all men are created equal", "divine right" or "there is no God but Allah". You say that these ideas are "a wonderful support" - I say they are essential.

When you speak of compromise you seem to suggest that there are things that a given faith (in the broadest sense, including secular humanism) doesn't really hold to be true, but only 'a nice ideal'. If something is actually true, then compromising away from it in a direction of falsehood is incomprehensible. A society may hold a common philosophy and tolerate alien elements/ideas, as long as it recognizes that they are alien. When it ceases to do so, then you have the breakdown of common philosophy and the beginnings of breakdown of society.
Tyranny is basically the will of a small body acting against the main body of the governed. It is the opposite of majority rule. The minority cannot really complain of tyranny (although people do use the oxymoronic expression "tyranny of the majority" - they merely do not realize the self-contradiction in the expression) - but the majority can. When a minority is overruled by a majority, the minority will call it something unjust, and the majority will call it just. So whatever the common philosophy is is what determines perceived rightness of action in society.

The philosophy you support makes the individual the arbiter of society, and the trouble with this is that the individual cannot determine a common philosophy. Thus, the society of the individual (where the individual is king) is also an oxymoron. It is the idea of democracy taken one step too far. In a functioning democracy, every individual is NOT king, and must submit to the will of the majority. But in the proposed society where the individual is king, the individual does not submit to the will of the majority - the absence of common philosophy, and so you ultimately end up with anarchy.

As I said, modern pluralistic society can only function by insisting on its central tenet, and enforcing that - that what the individual believes does not represent truth that also affects others; that truth is purely private, a personal affair, that, in effect, there is no truth. And this conflicts with traditional religions, which hold the opposite. So the pluralist society must oppress practical action that follows from a given religion that affects others. It IS coercive, and decidedly does not respect the conscience and choice of individuals who so believe. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340 It offers lip service to respect - as long as one does not act on the beliefs as practical proposals. It is, in a word, hypocritical. That's the number one thing I'm trying to communicate to y'all here in this fine thread on diversity and tolerance. The pluralism you espouse will tolerate anything, as long as it does not propose to be practical. As soon as it becomes something practical that does affect our lives and so enters our practice, politics, etc, it becomes something intolerable to the pluralist - for if people get the idea that there is truth, and that truth is highly practical and should be acted on, then the pluralist philosophy attempting to hold many people of differing philosophies together as one society must collapse and revert to separate societies.

[aliantha]

The minority cannot really complain of tyranny (although people do use the oxymoronic expression "tyranny of the majority" - they merely do not realize the self-contradiction in the expression)

Jeez, rus, that's what makes it such a cool phrase. It's the sense of having something unpalatable imposed on you. Living under one tyrant really isn't any different than living under a majority of tyrants -- not for the guy whose desires are being stifled.

Honestly, aren't there *any* similes or metaphors you like?

that what the individual believes does not represent truth that also affects others; that truth is purely private, a personal affair, that, in effect, there is no truth.

That's your assertion about plurality in a nutshell? Then you have misunderstood. Plurality recognizes the core truth at the heart of *all* spiritual practices -- the god or God or Universal Spirit, whatever each calls it -- and recognizes that the rest of it is all details. We will never agree on the details. We will never be able to know for sure, in this lifetime, which practices will please the Spirit most, which ones It desires, whether It even cares that much about us. So it grants that there's a Truth out there, but allows each person to believe in and worship that Truth as he or she is moved to do so. That also means that people who *don't* believe in any sort of Truth (other than science, perhaps) are free to take their chances.

You, on the other hand, would force the rest of us to worship Truth the way *you* see fit.

Again, I understand that you've found the religious fit that's best for you, and so you're convinced it's best for everyone. But it's not.

[rusmeister]

The minority cannot really complain of tyranny (although people do use the oxymoronic expression "tyranny of the majority" - they merely do not realize the self-contradiction in the expression)

Jeez, rus, that's what makes it such a cool phrase. It's the sense of having something unpalatable imposed on you. Living under one tyrant really isn't any different than living under a majority of tyrants -- not for the guy whose desires are being stifled.

Honestly, aren't there *any* similes or metaphors you like?

There are plenty of good similes and metaphors. I only object to false ones - ones that are not at all what they aspire to be. Saying "the tyranny of the majority" is like saying "the coldness of the heat", or "the dryness of the water". As soon as I figured that out - that as an expression it is B.S. - I rejected it. (This is party of my thesis of the falsehoods bombarded on us by schooling and the media, and eventually embedded into how we think, shaping a false view of reality.)

There is no way to have a public policy that will make people of all different stripes and colors happy. If we have slavery, then the slaves and abolitionists can complain of being oppressed. If we do not have slavery, then the slave owners and people capitalizing off them can so complain. If an issue does not allow for compromise, then one side or the other must be disappointed and will see themselves as oppressed. So it is with abortion. Like slavery, it must end in all one thing or all the other. The only decision that can really hold up over the long run will be the truly moral one, the one that is not self-serving.

that what the individual believes does not represent truth that also affects others; that truth is purely private, a personal affair, that, in effect, there is no truth.

That's your assertion about plurality in a nutshell? Then you have misunderstood. Plurality recognizes the core truth at the heart of *all* spiritual practices -- the god or God or Universal Spirit, whatever each calls it -- and recognizes that the rest of it is all details. We will never agree on the details. We will never be able to know for sure, in this lifetime, which practices will please the Spirit most, which ones It desires, whether It even cares that much about us. So it grants that there's a Truth out there, but allows each person to believe in and worship that Truth as he or she is moved to do so. That also means that people who *don't* believe in any sort of Truth (other than science, perhaps) are free to take their chances.

You, on the other hand, would force the rest of us to worship Truth the way *you* see fit.

Again, I understand that you've found the religious fit that's best for you, and so you're convinced it's best for everyone. But it's not.

No, Ali, I have not misunderstood. I know that your description is one of many claims - although it will not be so described by others. The description I give really does fit the essence of what everybody claims in its practical form. When you say "details", you are saying that those "details" are not important; ie, that they don't matter, which is pretty much what I said. Saying that however I envision the truth is 'true' is the same as saying that there is no truth. It is a clever reworking of Pilate's question "What is truth?".

Now my view also holds that people are free to accept or reject that truth - that obedience enforced by force is no true faith. I only describe how what I believe would work towards regarding public policy - not in forcing people who wish to reject the Truth to accept it against their will. So we also hold that people are free and cannot be forced to faith. But if we can, we will have laws that demand moral behavior in line with what we believe, regardless of what others believe. The difference from the pluralist position being, again, that we openly admit this.