diversity and tolerance

[aliantha]

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".

Not a creative bone in your body, huh? I kind of like "the coldness of the heat". I might have to work that into a story.

And btw, my post had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

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.

No, what you said was, "If the details don't matter, then there is no truth." Which is a false assertion. If there's a grain of truth in many religions -- if, for instance, they are all worshipping the same God, just in different ways -- then there *is* a shared core of truth at the center, and the rest *is* all just details.

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.

So we're all allowed not to believe in your God, but we all have to act as if everything you claim He wants us to do is true? Some freedom.

[danlo]

Atman and Brahman eh?

[rusmeister]

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.

No, what you said was, "If the details don't matter, then there is no truth." Which is a false assertion. If there's a grain of truth in many religions -- if, for instance, they are all worshipping the same God, just in different ways -- then there *is* a shared core of truth at the center, and the rest *is* all just details.

Maybe my wording is poor. When I said "If... then there is no truth", what I meant was (according to the public philosophy as it is put into practice) there is no absolute scheme as described by anyone that can possibly be the actual and correct description (so I'll capitalize the 't' in 'Truth' to distinguish). No one can possibly be right. That may allow that they have bits or pieces of individual truths - like - you shouldn't murder people - but one's cosmic description cannot be something considered as being the thing that shapes and affects all of us - and certainly should not be allowed to do so on a practical level. This means, in practical terms, that there is no Truth.

In short, what I am doing here is describing the philosophy behind public policy today. My special field of knowledge is its practical application in public schools - one of the two extra-familial pillars influencing most people, and therefore shaping how our society thinks, and I can say with confidence that that is in fact the philosophy. In fact, the intensity with which that philosophy is enforced was a main factor in driving me from agnosticism to faith.

Your assertion, on the other hand, represents only one of the many ideas encouraged by pluralism. One may be pluralist and need not accept your idea in doing so. The thing that is likely common to your view and the pluralist philosophy is that you probably believe that it is strictly your view (that it is personal, not universal), and that you should not teach or expound on it as truth in a public venue - such as public school or from political office.

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.

So we're all allowed not to believe in your God, but we all have to act as if everything you claim He wants us to do is true? Some freedom.

Precisely what I am complaining about. To me, it looks like:
So we're all allowed to believe in your God, but we all have to act as if nothing you claim He wants us to do is true? Some freedom.


I should stress again that the Orthodox Christian faith is about a Kingdom that is not of this world - so what it DOES teach (something I have not been expounding on here) only provides guidelines and direction for behavior in this world in regards to political action and public policy. It is possible for people to be Orthodox and disagree with me when talking about this stuff. (I'd say they are probably wrong when they talk about things that I DO know something about, while admitting that it is likely that somewhere on something that I am wrong.) But most of them would likely admit that what I am saying would be, in general, supported by my faith and my Church. We are free to disagree on matters not touching dogma. I am not free to disagree with the dogma and remain Orthodox. And the dogma is the very thing I can't talk to you guys about as something you could possibly accept as true, unless you first accepted the Faith - starting with "Christ is risen!!!"

All that's to say that what I have been saying is NOT the teachings of the Orthodox Church. If you want a better sense of that, like I said to Fist, read Schmemann www.schmemann.org/ or Men' www.alexandermen.com/Main_Page or Hopko (the last if you want a living authority) www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2 . I wouldn't want you conflating my proposals with that. But the BEST sense you could get would be to attend a service, especially a Liturgy. The ultimate killer service is Pascha (Easter). It would be worth reading twenty books. We like to say, "Come and see!"

[Avatar]

So the majority cannot be tyrants? Really?

--A

[rusmeister]

So the majority cannot be tyrants? Really?

--A

Sticking to common and traditional understandings, and needing to appeal to authority other than myself to refer to those common definitions:

In classical politics, a tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tirannos) is one who has taken power by his or her own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny (τυραννίς turannis).

Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others". [1]

In common usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls. The Greek term carried no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and Classical periods and began to acquire such only during the Hellenistic period.

In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it. This is how the Greeks understood the word 'tyrant': they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate.

[Rousseau, "The Social Contract"]

So, basically, no.

The people who use new terms like "tyranny of the majority" use words like "oppression" in the same way they use "discrimination" and "in/tolerance" - they rely on an assumption that the "oppression", "in/tolerance" or "discrimination" is intrinsically good or bad. No thought that there could be appropriate oppression, discrimination or intolerance ever crosses their mind. Thus, they are rhetorical weapons that circumvent thought, rather than encourage it.

In this case the common objection is that the "oppression" of a minority is necessarily negative.
1) This could be true or not true. We do oppress things that we really think to be wrong/evil, and we do not consider it "oppression" (again, in that exclusively negative sense) in so doing.
2) Even when true, it is already not tyranny, although it would be persecution. It may be combined with tyranny, such as in Fascist Germany, but persecution by the majority is not, in itself, tyranny.

When not true, it is then used to attain the political goals of a minority seeking to subvert the reasonable will of the majority - the entire purpose for which democracy is established.

In short, it is nonsense which arises from faulty reasoning.

[aliantha]

When I said "If... then there is no truth", what I meant was (according to the public philosophy as it is put into practice) there is no absolute scheme as described by anyone that can possibly be the actual and correct description (so I'll capitalize the 't' in 'Truth' to distinguish). No one can possibly be right.

But that's not correct. I acknowledge that you might be right. But I don't want to hedge my bets, because there's an equal chance (as far as I'm concerned) that one of the other players might be right. And there are a *lot* of other players. You gotta admit, from my point of view, the odds in your favor are kinda crappy. So the only sane thing I can do is to pick the viewpoint that feels most true to me -- and hope that either: 1) the Universal Spirit is not as vengeful or jealous as that guy in the Old Testament; or 2) I'm right that there *is* no right answer.

And the only sane way to pick the one that feels most true to me is to base my choice on two things: 1) the dogma that speaks most closely to my morality; and 2) the behavior of those who believe in that dogma. So if I see a whole bunch of people who profess to be Christian, but who lie and cheat and steal and kill, I'm less likely to buy the "<shrug> well, we're all imperfect humans" line and more likely to believe that the religion just isn't very effective at policing its members -- and/or that the dogma is too easy for believers to warp in order to justify despicable behavior.

And I'm *really* not going to be kindly disposed toward that religion if its followers try to harass me into joining them Because They Know The Truth. Because common sense tells me there's no possible way they could.

But I have zero problem with you following any religion you want. So your restatement:

So we're all allowed not to believe in your God, but we all have to act as if everything you claim He wants us to do is true? Some freedom.

Precisely what I am complaining about. To me, it looks like:
So we're all allowed to believe in your God, but we all have to act as if nothing you claim He wants us to do is true? Some freedom.

is, to use one of your favorite words, non-sense.

[rusmeister]

When I said "If... then there is no truth", what I meant was (according to the public philosophy as it is put into practice) there is no absolute scheme as described by anyone that can possibly be the actual and correct description (so I'll capitalize the 't' in 'Truth' to distinguish). No one can possibly be right.

But that's not correct. I acknowledge that you might be right. But I don't want to hedge my bets, because there's an equal chance (as far as I'm concerned) that one of the other players might be right. And there are a *lot* of other players. You gotta admit, from my point of view, the odds in your favor are kinda crappy. So the only sane thing I can do is to pick the viewpoint that feels most true to me -- and hope that either: 1) the Universal Spirit is not as vengeful or jealous as that guy in the Old Testament; or 2) I'm right that there *is* no right answer.

And the only sane way to pick the one that feels most true to me is to base my choice on two things: 1) the dogma that speaks most closely to my morality; and 2) the behavior of those who believe in that dogma. So if I see a whole bunch of people who profess to be Christian, but who lie and cheat and steal and kill, I'm less likely to buy the "<shrug> well, we're all imperfect humans" line and more likely to believe that the religion just isn't very effective at policing its members -- and/or that the dogma is too easy for believers to warp in order to justify despicable behavior.

And I'm *really* not going to be kindly disposed toward that religion if its followers try to harass me into joining them Because They Know The Truth. Because common sense tells me there's no possible way they could.

But I have zero problem with you following any religion you want. So your restatement:

So we're all allowed not to believe in your God, but we all have to act as if everything you claim He wants us to do is true? Some freedom.

Precisely what I am complaining about. To me, it looks like:
So we're all allowed to believe in your God, but we all have to act as if nothing you claim He wants us to do is true? Some freedom.

is, to use one of your favorite words, non-sense.

Hi Ali,
(This seems kind of OT, but it's how the conversation seems to be going...)
I wouldn't expect you to turn to something else - unless/until you first became dissatisfied with paganism. The only thing I could hope to do is show you that there is a form of Christianity that is quite different from your experience of it, and I believe it likely that you would find at least some of its answers more satisfying than what you left. (In short, I would validate your experience while insisting that you didn't get the whole picture - or likely even a very big part of it. (That's partly because both general ignorance, especially in the West, both of Church history and Eastern Christianity - it's nothing personal. In Protestantism, in particular, Church history pretty much starts with Martin Luther.) I'd ask if you have ever been harassed by Orthodox people coming to your door...

Yes, of course I admit that any one claim out of a thousand would seem poor odds (especially on a surface view), so I understand what you mean there. Also, that you seek out the one that seems most true is of course the right thing. From my POV, that is something that gives me hope for all of us - that God's mercy is greater than we can comprehend. I'm not a universalist, though. As Lewis said, we have to admit that even our Lord said that it's possible to lose. But neither do we claim to know who will be saved.
And there's the rub. You've rejected Christianity in general because of your experience. I rejected it, too, when I was 19, because of my experience with the Baptists. It really was unsatisfying in the long run - both my personal experience and holes in their theology that I had, even at that age, thought my way to. And after 20 years of agnosticism, when I came to Orthodoxy, it was (at first) largely due to luck - being married to a woman who had become Orthodox several years prior. But in exploring it, it just got deeper and deeper - and as GKC put it, it was right not only where I was right, but more importantly, where I was wrong. I find it to be radically different from everything I know about in western Christianity, and it is deeply satisfying, even though there are things that I long for and have not grown to the point of achieving yet.

One thing I do not do, though, is judge a faith merely by the behavior of its believers. That seems to make sense on the surface, but frankly, I do not find that behavior is a reliable barometer at all. Intense atheists are sometimes very moral and self-sacrificing. Some Christians, even Orthodox Christians, are very very far from the ideals set by their faith. (Of course, if we take nominalism into account, that clears out the deadwood, but still, people who do seriously practice a faith can be bitter, nasty, do dirty deeds, etc.)

The Christian doctrine of the Fall - more importantly the Orthodox understanding of it - clears up all of the contradictions. Everything stands in its place and is explained. It is no simple "we're all imperfect humans" line. It is far more than a line - the doctrine is based on deep thought and is consistent with human experience. The behavior is NOT justified - but it is explained.
A brief intro to that concept: www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=16

On your comment on my restatement, I did say "To me, it looks like..." You'd have to put yourself into my POV for it to make sense.

Also, I think it is your reason, rather than common sense, which tells you that nobody could possibly know the truth. And isn't that the charge I made about pluralism in general?

[aliantha]

Nope, I'm sticking with common sense. Because reasoning may be faulty.

I understand that for Christians, the doctrine of the Fall explains everything. But I'm looking at it from the outside.

Btw, I just finished reading a biography about Rudolf II, and was reminded that Jan Hus predated Martin Luther by more than a century. Hus was a Czech who was burned at the stake for heresy in 1415. Among other things, he opposed the Catholic Church's acceptance of indulgences (that is, buying your way out of sin).

[rusmeister]

Nope, I'm sticking with common sense. Because reasoning may be faulty.

I understand that for Christians, the doctrine of the Fall explains everything. But I'm looking at it from the outside.

Btw, I just finished reading a biography about Rudolf II, and was reminded that Jan Hus predated Martin Luther by more than a century. Hus was a Czech who was burned at the stake for heresy in 1415. Among other things, he opposed the Catholic Church's acceptance of indulgences (that is, buying your way out of sin).

Yeah, I was in Prague and got the low-down on him then.
What I mean about Protestantism is that the history that they can refer to is very spotty - unless they admit that the Catholic Church (while still being ignorant of the Orthodox Church) was the valid Church until at least the time of the Crusades. But most don't, leaving them with no history for their respective churches. They have to borrow Catholic history or go without, for the simple reason that there IS no other history. Just a small number of dissenters, aka heresiarchs, scattered at a few points in history. Just look up the history of any given faith at all. They won't have any solid history until after the Reformation, at best - and most much later. Ask them where their Church was before that and they will invariably give answers that have little to no historical support - certainly none for anything like a continuous history - something essential if their faith were really true.

common sense
14c., originally the power of uniting mentally the impressions conveyed by the five physical senses, thus "ordinary understanding, without which one is foolish or insane" (L. sensus communis, Gk. koine aisthesis); meaning "good sense" is from 1726. Also, as an adj., commonsense.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=%22 ... hmode=none

Common sense tells you when to come in out of the rain. It doesn't tell you "there is no truth". That is a root assumption - possibly a first principle - but based in reason, or lack thereof. I could say that my common sense tells me there IS truth - (certainly that is far more likely) - but then how could it actually be common?

[aliantha]

Christianity seems pretty common to me....

Anyhow, when did I say that common sense told me "there is no truth"? I specifically said that I believe there *is* truth behind every religion. What I said was that no human being can possibly know for sure that he, as a human, knows The Truth. That would require knowing what God knows. As far as I've heard, there was only one human being who knew what God knew, and even he had doubts at times.

[Avatar]

So, basically, no.

Fine.

Do you believe that it is possible for a majority to unjustly and in a negative way treat a minority in a manner which is oppressive by denying them the rights/freedom/opportunity/treatment that the majority expects for itself?

(Uh, what are we arguing about here? How does it relate to tolerance and diversity? )

--A

[rusmeister]

So, basically, no.

Fine.

Do you believe that it is possible for a majority to unjustly and in a negative way treat a minority in a manner which is oppressive by denying them the rights/freedom/opportunity/treatment that the majority expects for itself?

(Uh, what are we arguing about here? How does it relate to tolerance and diversity? )

--A

I was just denying the use of the word "Tyranny", and pointing out the illogic of a popular phrase.
Of course a majority can behave unjustly. But it is not tyranny. It may be persecution, it may be enslavement. But it ain't the rule of an individual or small oligarchy over the majority. Put another way, only a minority can be tyrannous.
When the popular phrase is used, injustice is assumed and not questioned. It's a pop expression used as a rhetorical weapon to circumvent thought. I say air out whether the purported injustice is really unjust.

[rusmeister]

Christianity seems pretty common to me....

Anyhow, when did I say that common sense told me "there is no truth"? I specifically said that I believe there *is* truth behind every religion. What I said was that no human being can possibly know for sure that he, as a human, knows The Truth. That would require knowing what God knows. As far as I've heard, there was only one human being who knew what God knew, and even he had doubts at times.

Thanks!

I had been proceeding from this text:

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 actually formed it differently now in a way that's clearer to me and I can accept.

It is true that some important concepts in life cannot be known in the empirical sense, and that some things are an act of faith. Trusting in our ability to reason is itself an act of faith. What this does, though, is denies the act of faith. It says that there may be no public acts of faith. The policy is enacted on a people that no longer share a common philosophy and the same general assumptions and which will otherwise break apart altogether. It basically says, on any point of conflict, that we don't really know anything, and can't be sure of anything (that can't be scientifically proven) and therefore can't teach it or expound on it as something universally true.

So the salient point is that we do assume some things to be true, even when there is room for doubt. And on the very thing that determines the morality of a society this view says that we can only doubt. That we can be "sure for ourselves" if we want to, but that we may not propose to be sure enough to enact policy, or even to act as if it actually is true. My stand could seem self-contradictory if I held all views in abeyance, examining them on the smorgasbord table of modern philosophy, picking and choosing what appeals to me... but I don't hold all views to be equal. Some really are "more equal" than others, and more thoroughly and correctly describe what is than others.

[SoulBiter]

There is alot of 'I believe' even in science. There are many theories that are taught as if they were 'facts' when it fact they are only theories. How about this one... We live in a universe (and world) that has many many things that balance perfectly and if that balance were not perfect the universe would not be able to sustain life. The chance that all these things line up so perfectly are literally trillions upon trillons to one. Yet science will accept that 'it just is' as a theory without any emperical evidence otherwise but will not accept that it could have been created that way.

[Avatar]

I think the premise behind it is not that it all simply lines up perfectly from the start, but that equilibrium is reached through a series of imbalances eventually evening out.

--A

[SoulBiter]

But the odds of all this balancing out are literally trillions and trillions to 1. Which is what Im getting at..... Science will say that if the odds are incredibly against something happening and what happens is in a recognizable form, then it was by design. Example... if you found a mountain that had a formation that was a replica of a person. You wouldnt think... oh that happened naturally and by accident because the odds are so incredibly against it. Could it happen? Yes but the odds are trillions upon trillions to one against so you would immediatly say.. someone designed this.....

[rusmeister]

But the odds of all this balancing out are literally trillions and trillions to 1. Which is what Im getting at..... Science will say that if the odds are incredibly against something happening and what happens is in a recognizable form, then it was by design. Example... if you found a mountain that had a formation that was a replica of a person. You wouldnt think... oh that happened naturally and by accident because the odds are so incredibly against it. Could it happen? Yes but the odds are trillions upon trillions to one against so you would immediatly say.. someone designed this.....

Or, as a wise man put it:

When logic says a thing must be so, Nature always agrees. No one can suppose that this can be due to a happy coincidence. A great many people think that it is due to the fact that Nature produced the mind. But on the assumption that Nature is herself mindless this provides no explanation. To be the result of a series of mindless events is one thing: to be a kind of plan or true account of the laws according to which those mindless events arose is quite another. Thus the Gulf Stream produces all sorts of results: for instance, the temperature of the Irish Sea. What it does not produce is maps of the Gulf Stream. But if logic, as we find it operative in our own minds, is really a result of mindless nature, then it is a result as improbable as that. The laws whereby logic obliges us to think turn out to be the laws according to which every event in space and time must happen. The man who thinks this an ordinary or probable result does not really understand. It is as if cabbages, in addition to resulting from the laws of botany also gave lectures in that subject: or as if, when I knocked out my pipe, the ashes arranged themselves into letters which read: ‘We are the ashes of a knocked-out pipe.’ But if the validity of knowledge cannot be explained that way, and if perpetual happy coincidence throughout the whole of recorded time is out of the question, then surely we must seek the real explanation elsewhere.

This is part of what I have said all along about the illogic of meaninglessness.
Also:

Mechanism, like all materialist philosophies, breaks down on the problem of knowledge. If thought is the undesigned and irrelevant product of cerebral motions, what reason have we to trust it?

The man who represents all thought as an accident of environment is simply smashing and discrediting all his own thoughts – including that one.

[Avatar]

Science will say that if the odds are incredibly against something happening and what happens is in a recognizable form, then it was by design.

Don't think I agree with this. If the odds of something happening are millions to one against, and it happens, it doesn't mean it was by design. Nor would science say so. It's simply that that one chance came about.

--A

[rusmeister]

Science will say that if the odds are incredibly against something happening and what happens is in a recognizable form, then it was by design.

Don't think I agree with this. If the odds of something happening are millions to one against, and it happens, it doesn't mean it was by design. Nor would science say so. It's simply that that one chance came about.

--A

While theoretically true, it ignores Occam's razor. It's choosing to believe in something that is not impossible - but merely incredible. It is more rational to believe in the impossible (ie, to accept that there are possibilities outside what we know of the natural universe) than the incredible (that which violates laws we DO know about). A miracle admittedly lies outside of our experience. It is by definition, super- (extra)-natural. We know that mountains do not evolve in the shape of letters, not because it is impossible, but because according to the laws that we do know, it is incredible. It goes against that which does lie in our experience.

Charlotte's Web offers a simple example of this truth. Such a thing could not be acknowledged as that which naturally happens. It could only be recognized as miracle or hoax.

[aliantha]

But if there's a million-to-one chance of something happening, there's still that one chance. So the thing's not impossible, just extremely unlikely. There's no need to go looking for extra-natural solutions.