- Matthieu Miossec
- Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
- United Kingdom
Doctoral Student - Genetic Medecine (Congenital Heart Disease),
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Morality is better informed by science than it is by religion
Religion has a long history of claiming absolute knowledge over questions of morals. Often today, we hear preachers on the street tell us that, for all our scientific and technological achievements, we are losing touch with our morals. Is that true? Is religion than the only or at least the best answer to our moral shortcomings?
The other view is that morality has progressively changed and increased with time and we shudder to think about what stood as morals in our past. In great part, it can be argued that science has fed many moral values by revealing natural truths about ourselves and other animals such that we can no longer see the world in a way that make certain immoral behaviors justifiable.
So which one is better equipped to inform morality? Is there a third institution better equipped perhaps?
Phillip Beaver 10+
It seems the Hindu mind is confused and conflicted by the ancient practice of purposefully mixing the physical with the spiritual: mixing reality with intellectual constructs which are diverse.
As an example, I cite a book that provides insight into how Eastern belief may mislead believers: Chopra, Krishan. Your Life Is in Your Hands. 1999. Element Books. Boston, MA 02114.
The writer, an MD, discusses oxygen, a physical substance, and the breath of life in parallel discussions that confound at least a non-Hindu reader with the word “prana.”
On Page 176: “When we breathe in through the nose, the air passes by small bones in the nose called turbinates, which swirl it into a refined stream most suitable for oxygen exchange[, and] prana is said to travel into the brain along the olfactory nerve. When we breathe through the mouth this does not happen. Instead, . . . the unprepared air moves directly into the lungs. It [prana] travels in and out of the body without going to the brain directly.” Note that statements about oxygen intake are unclearly interspersed with spiritualisms.
Then, on Page 178, the reader has a chance at clarification: “According to ancient scriptures, prana not only signifies human breath, but also the breath of the universe, the life force. It is the tendency of the unmanifest to vibrate and take form; it is the energy behind both mind and matter.” But, readers have to go back to Page 176 to apply this information.
Awareness of this confusion helps me take phantasms reported by Yogis with a fractional grain of salt.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
Yet one conversation with another Christian can invoke arrogance, controversy, conflict, and even hatred. For example a Christian who has never heard of transubstantiation might ridicule the one who practices it; a Christian baptized by emersion might castigate one who was christened; a Unitarian may tolerate a Trinitarian.
Sectarianism creates hatred among Christians over what no one knows and is thus socially damaging and immoral. Religion is worse, as it inspires world wars.
On the other hand, every moment spent studying nature or reality builds understanding, delight, and social harmony. The moral superiority of science over religion is astonishing.
Frans Kellner 100+
You leave out the good things of religion.
You don't have questions, there's no need to study a thing.
If you play by the rule there's always help at hand and you're always right.
The future is bliss and even more if today is hardship.
You never have to choose because decisions are made for you.
So life is made easy going, why don't you buy it?
Phillip Beaver 10+
I appreciate the question.
Of course I'm still trying to discover myself--dig out of five decades' self-indoctrination into religion, but it it seems I prefer "understanding, delight, and harmony," and humility to "confidence and satisfaction."
I am interested in your thoughts: what would you add?
Phil
Frans Kellner 100+
As being human there's an inner urge to expand consciousness.
Once you saw something you can't make it unseen again.
There's no choice left than to awake as the soul loves to know itself.
Understanding gives delight and brings harmony which reveals the beauty of life and inspires love.
For heaven we don't have to die. Look around, heaven and hell are on earth both and we can choose for one or the other every day.
We are self responsible for all good and bad and need to take that responsibility and align with the one and only being that’s now and only now.
Phillip, I can understand that it is difficult to navigate your own course after so many years. You're not the only one in history and often they became the best navigators.
To discriminate all thoughts and see clearly takes a lot of unlearning to make up your own mind.
Jaime Lubin 10+
Phillip Beaver 10+
Frans, thank you for the additional thoughts. At age 68 I do not feel there is enough time to fill the gaps, but am very happy to close a few each day. TEDsters accelerate my progress.
Phil
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
The difference between a preacher and a pastor?
Humility.
Andrea
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
I am with you.
Questioning religion exclusively without questioning secularism with equal fervor becomes religious, in translation. A religious-type zeal to conquer religion, so to speak. That employs circular logic.
And only clouds the more elegant, if complex, answer that sees any human attempt to isolate fundamental morals as incapable of encapsulating the dynamic and many-faceted prism that contains moral truth.
Andrea
Phillip Beaver 10+
I prefer to think I have heard Bertrand Russell in this 90 second statement: http://deskarati.com/2011/08/04/bertrands-wise-words/ .
I think Frans is a subtle contributor, and it seems to me he approves of my thinking, at least for me. I like his post very much.
It reminds me of my wife's response to my work, essentially, "Your passion is to absorb thought, consider it, and decide your opinion. I am glad you are passionate about it. But in the end, you don't KNOW any more than me."
She's correct. :-)
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
Research leads in women’s liberation from oppressions imposed by religion and thereby helps inform morality.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
Jay, secularism is in the US Constitution, complete with its goals; stated in the Pramble. For the first time in American history, the leaders--not the 1776 leaders of Independence, but the 1787 Founders of the nation, made a break from religion. Instead of continuing to say that governance was from a God, they wrote, "We the People . . . in order to [fulfill seven secular goals] do [form and establish republican, federal governance]."
First nine, then gradually thirteen states ratified the claims. But most Americans neither know nor honor the facts, perhaps because they do not want to be responsible and accountable for governance.
Following Christian tradition, the majority wants God to be responsible and accountable.Consider the refrain: come into my heart; cleans me; save me. No where do you hear ideas like "Thank you, Lord, for your ideas; they cleansed me; I perform virtuously and continually review my behavior to make certain I have not deviated."
Churches could not suvive it if believers declined supplication to take up moral excellence.
Jay, sorry I missed this for a couple days. Please alert me if I have missed more.
Phil
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Jason Kather 10+
:-)
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Notice how Wendy Wright is totally clueless when it comes to evolution though and repeats the same garbage like a mantra...reminds me of someone.
Peter Law 30+
Beneficial random mutations are selected by environmental pressures thereby tending to improve the organism over many generations. (or similar)
Great theory; but where's the evidence?
Wendy was a bit annoyed at constantly being told she was dumb; does Dawkins honestly believe she has not looked at the available evidence ?
:-)
Frans Kellner 100+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Phillip Beaver 10+
May I modify that to "1787 Founder's intent" to note that the signers of the Constitution were addressing how American people would govern their nation, whereas the 1776 Leaders were declaring war against Great Britian if not independence by negotiation?
About each week, I start a new dialogue about We the People and the seven goals in the Preamble, last week meeting for the first time with a Muslim friend from before my retirement ten years ago. I find it difficul to draw interest. Most Americans seem to prefer the religious Declaration trumping the secular Constitution. Understandably, non-Americans can't relate to the universal appeal of the Preamble, perhaps justifiably because "unity" would need modification and the American rejection of We the People does not go unnoticed.
Regardless, We the People does not respond to Matthieu's question.
Unless you have more to say in this conversation or responses to my comments, I thank you for everything I leaned and look forward to new TED conversations of interest to both of us.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
For example, religion, despite the horizon’s curvature, proclaimed a layered construction of the universe. Flat or not, religion’s earth had ends that many navigators feared. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Early_Christian_Church . "[S]ince the eighth century, no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth."[110] However, the work of these intellectuals may not have had significant influence on public opinion.” “Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth.” Religion immorally retards understanding.
Second, consider nuclear energy. See http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.html .
• “The science of atomic radiation, atomic change and nuclear fission was developed from 1895 to 1945, much of it in the last six of those years.
• Over 1939-45, most development was focused on the atomic bomb.
• From 1945 attention was given to harnessing this energy in a controlled fashion for naval propulsion and for making electricity.
• Since 1956 the prime focus has been on the technological evolution of reliable nuclear power plants.
• Uranium was discovered in 1789 by Martin Klaproth, a German chemist.
Religion immorally retards mankind’s progress in harnessing and utilizing nature.
Lastly, there’s DNA, with history beginning in 1866: http://www.dnai.org/timeline/ . Science progresses with surprising speed.
In general, religion’s commitment to doctrine keeps it stagnated in the distant past. Meanwhile, science incidentally exposes religion’s fallacies. The current generation, including believers, needs to put religion in its proper place—in the private contemplations of believers, and out of the arena of governance.
Phil
Jay Goltz
"The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. …Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory." Was he mistaken when he wrote this?
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Jay Goltz
Matthieu Miossec 100+
As a side note, a master does not need to be violent toward his slave for the whole relationship to be abjectly immoral, the slave merely needs to be used against his will, something that is infinitely easier to live with if you think the person you're enslaving is actually an inferior being. Cruelty may have always been an immoral behavior, but slavery went unquestioned for many years with most people (not a powerful majority dictating the world's views) having no qualms about it. There was certainly no bias on the part of Christians to be more moral about then the rest, clearly delineating the limits of objective God-given morality. I don't blame them for it, but it is a pertinent observation, especially for those who argue that morality doesn't show improvement over the ages.
Jay Goltz
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Phillip Beaver 10+
Here's James Madison in 1785: The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
Because they refuse to be We the People as defined in the Preamble to the US Constitution, the majority of American citizens are slaves, as described by Madison.
Phil
Jay Goltz
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Jay Goltz
Matthieu Miossec 100+
You have 8 hours.
Phillip Beaver 10+
As you probably perceive, there’s a Bible interpretation for every human who ever considered it. Each clergyman’s interpretation is unique, even though each may report to an institution.
The modifiers you use to justify slavery are not scriptural. All you need to do is try to apply your reasoning to yourself and you may be constrained to change. Further, it matters not how you react to the Bible on slavery: the US Civil War was between Christians who felt the Bible supported slavery of traded Africans and Christians who felt regardless of Bible verses slavery is immoral.
Have your read Huckleberry Finn’s struggle with his own thought and his Sunday school instruction that if he did not return runaway slave Jim to his owner HF would go to hell? HF has seen that Jim is a great human being and as he approaches the shore he thinks, “All right then, I’ll just go to Hell.”
Even today, you can conduct a dialogue between sworn Christians and find people who will not answer the question, “Should slavery be restored to the states that had it?”
Also, your statement about equality neglects election of believers. Consider John 6:38-39. I know, I know, I’m reading it without an indoctrination filter.
Looking forward.
Phil
Jason Kather 10+
Justifications of slavery all fall short, but somehow a part of the religious thinkers need to come to terms with it in their own minds, I guess. The fact that Jesus (if he ever really existed) was obviously okay with slavery is undeniable given the "Historical" written record of the Bible and makes people say and think strange things.
Jay Goltz
Jason Kather 10+
Your quote proves absolutely nothing. Your "understanding context" is a sad excuse for slavery. What else have you talked yourself into believing?
Jay Goltz
Phillip Beaver 10+
“I'd rather be the person who resists nuclear bomb proliferation . . .” Developing nuclear bombs was inevitable; I want to have them first and use that strength to discourage evil men from developing them, thereby resisting proliferation.
“I imagine, self-righteous experts of both science and religion suffer and propagate about equally.” A scientist is not self-righteous—waits for repeatable evidence before drawing conclusions. If not, he is religious. The religious make an assumption then construct doctrine based on the assumption without regard for evidence.
“My sister, in heart failure -- the last stop for patients, prescribes as a matter of course, along with scientific remedies, a spiritual one: purpose. She is convinced people getting involved in something beyond themselves can change health in remarkable ways.” I am glad your sister has purpose.
After my triple by-pass, I was prepared for death to remedy suffering but was inspired to survive to continue supporting my three ladies—my wife and adult daughters; I began a fitness program. Eight years later, with a stage 3 carcinoma in my right lung, we studied diets to strengthen resistance to cancer. The family has benefited. I have no objection to people calling these wonderful results “spiritual.” However, I regard them as open-mindedness and behavior according to understanding.
“A mission to undo religion and faith clouds the objective analysis of them. Respect for the strengths of both science and religion seems best.” Equivocating “faith” and “religion” is common, but unacceptable to me. To me, “faith” means trust in and commitment to, in my case, reality. Faith has strength: religion has weakness. Usually, religion immorally divides humankind.
I prefer: understanding informs morality, especially by disclosing the immorality of religion.
Phil
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Your "purpose" to continue supporting your "three ladies" is inspiring. They are very lucky to have your sustained commitment to caring for yourself so you can care for them, too. All best in your efforts to do more of the same!
I saw nothing strong in obliterating whole cities of people in Japan to sable rattle at Russia.
I see it as strategic opportunism. As do historian Paul Ham and many US military leaders. With, I'd add, the predictable consequence of creating martyrs of the upwards of 300,000 scorched civilians while leaving the US looking like global thugs.
Its not much different then global-scale gang warfare, in my mind. One group of thugs paranoid that the other group of thugs is treading on their turf and/or coming to kill them, pipe-bombs the rival group's 'hood to show their manlier-manliness. Then: Retaliation. And, Repeat.
None look manly when little children are torn apart by shrapnel or burned skinless.
Or, when generations of people are left with the physical and psychological scars "Little Boy" bombs leave in the dusty craters of their wake.
Again, religion Is used as a convenient tool in these quite unnatural and inhuman behaviors:
"I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb (...) it is an awful responsibility which has come to us (...) We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes." Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945.
So, here again, I agree with you.
Religion is used for immoral means. And, I'd add: devastating, disgusting ends.
Still, I hold science no less accountable for dividing humankind. It is equally corrupted when humans use it as a tool of their free will to further their immoral means.
I'd rather not drop bombs in a strategic attempt to avoid a lose-lose fights, then risk all. Including my country's reputation for the fleeting, superficial so-called "glory" of a dubious, deadly win.
Andrea
Phillip Beaver 10+
Your contributions amaze me and I thank you; I say never stop.
Of course the joy of trying to fulfill the role of husband and two roles of father is amazing, and the ultimate goal is their peace and confidence when I die. In the meantime, my first duty is to stay out of hospitals. My friend Kishon Seth, about 76, and I tell each other that idea at least once a week. I want to share Kish’s and my refrain with everyone: your duty is to stay out of hospitals.
Once again, I think a small change in language would help us understand how parallel our thinking is. I would agree that many “scientists” are evil and many “clergymen” so wish to help humankind that it is a tragedy they are not social workers or psychologists or political scientists—in any role except purveyors of “the truth” when they deny reality for religion.
Machiavelli taught us the greatest evil of the clergy: by joining with the politicians, the clergy help politicians persuade the people to accept and effect evil even though the people feel intolerant toward evil. We know of Truman, Bush, and Lincoln so using religion.
Thank you for the quotation of Truman. We can find an analogous quotation of Geo. W. Bush, and you and I watched in horror as he invaded Iraq, based on the advice of his heavenly father and the “prayers” of the majority of Americans. We should have started impeachment proceedings the day after his declaration.
Continued
Phillip Beaver 10+
Abraham Lincoln was also guilty of abusing religion. He was perhaps the most politically skilled citizen America has known. Reared in a religious community that opposed slavery, he opposed slavery but did not want to be known as an abolitionist. To object to the Dred Scott decision in 1857, he could have advocated an amendment to the US Constitution. However, to protect his perception of success (a religion in that it involves an assumption, just like Einstein and his static universe), Lincoln cited the Declaration of Independence and started the precedent that the Declaration (religious) trumps the US Constitution.
The 1789 Christian majority of the people wanted to continue attributing to God responsibility and accountability for governance, and, therefore, never accept the role We the People as defined in the Preamble to the US Constitution (a subject about which Google and you introduced me to TED). The unintended consequence of Lincoln’s failure to uphold the US Constitution brought America to its current status: Christian democracy instead of the secular republic the 1787 founders wanted.
Instead of Independence Day wherein we state our dependence on God and claim freedom, a privilege, America should have a double federal holiday around September 17, wherein we renew the seven, secular goals stated in the Preamble then follow with national debate of remaining injustices and proposals for Constitutional amendments to remedy them.
In a recent conversation, I asked perhaps my dearest Christian friend: Given two equally earnest Christians, one detests slavery and the other supports it based on Bible references; both are of the people, but which one is of We the People? That was the end of our dialogue on that subject. (We plan to go to lunch in a week.)
The evolution of humankind’s goodness—understanding--informs morality quicker and better than religion does.
On our way to a sing-along taking us back forty years in friendships.
Phil
Jay Goltz
".....for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ???
Most of everyone that signed this important landmark document were Christian or at least believed in a "Creator" as was written about. Therefore I am wanting to learn more of what you were speaking about concerning secularism. Thanks again Phil! You seem to be a very nice person, regardless of our difference of beliefs, and I hope that you do not mind conversing with me either. Have a great one!
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
There is debate about Lincoln's personal religious leanings. Though it's true Lincoln used religious rhetoric in his mission to emancipate slaves.
Had he not, the likelihood he would have succeeded would have been significantly less.
Imagine him saying: "Lets look at the research guys. Science say slavery is immoral." He wouldn't have got far.
Instead, Lincoln used two strong planks to scaffold his anti-slave case: political and religious.
By calling on prevailing populists' biblical Law, which from Moses forward rejects slavery, as well as "We the-equal People" law, Lincoln's argument was "cross-reinforced," Christian belief buttressed civil action against slavery.
In fact, this demonstrates how Lincoln employed scientific-style "proof," by citing "relevant texts" as confirmation of his thesis.
I'd say Lincoln's strategy here was quite elegant. He used diverse moral vernaculars to illuminate immoral acts and amplify their evils to all.
Though I agree, it would have been preferable for Lincoln to have advocated a Constitutional amendment regards the post-emancipation Dred Scott case.
But his arguments would have had nothing of the dimension of his anti-slavery positions. He couldn't argue religious law which left him with only the Constitutional law, one less-than solid plank.
Calling up the voices of the Founders as he did compellingly in the fight against slavery wouldn't have worked. Nearly all were Christian. Of the few who weren't, the most compelling church/state separation advocate, Thomas Jefferson, would have been dissonant, though, due the fact he owned slaves.
One wishes our polymath president Jefferson would have asserted his Enlightenment energies more while authoring the Declaration, but he didn't.
So Lincoln spoke in ways both religious and non-religious could hear.
As did Ghandi and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in their transformative iterations against immoral , anti-human oppression.
Andrea
Phillip Beaver 10+
Jay, thank you for the kind words and opportunity to learn. Let me address only the "Nature's God" part of your question. The colonization of America was conducted for "spreading the Christian faith." One of the taxations that led to the revolution was a law suit by the clergy (see below). The small, poor population in the colonies felt weak compared to the 1770s empire builder, Great Britain. To inspire colonial soldiers, deists, such as Thomas Jefferson, led the declaration: Our God will beat your God. Hence, "Natures God" and all the other deistic terms in the Declaration, without pointing out that subtlety to the Christian majority soldiers.
Here's some supporting evidence:
Royal Charters were clearly Christian commissions by British Kings:
First Virginia, 1606: “Wee . . . accepting . . . noble a worke . . . in propagating of Christian religion to suche people as yet live in darkenesse and miserable ignorance of the true knoweledge and worshippe of God and may in tyme bring the infidels and salvages living in those parts to humane civilitie.”
Connecticut, 1662: “. . . whereby Our said People . . . may win and invite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledge and Obedience of the only true GOD, and He Saviour of Mankind, and the Christian Faith, which in Our Royal Intentions, and the adventurers free Possession, is the only and principal End of this Plantation.”
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Virginia#Religious_freedom_and_disestablishment.
“. . . in 1763 . . . The Virginia legislature had passed the Two-Penny Act to stop clerical salaries from inflating. King George III vetoed the measure, and clergy sued for back salaries.”
In the historical context, the Declaration states: Nature’s God will beat the King’s God, Christianity.
I feel this is a start; please consider this much and comment.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
There were many early documents that declared slavery immoral on practical and humane bases, for example, Thomas Paine's letter of 1775, published in Philadelphia. See http://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm .
Lincoln's failure in Dred Scott 1857 (and 6 years before emancipation in 1863), was his appeal to the religious Declaration instead of upholding the secular US Constitution. The Constitution starts with the Preamble, which states seven secular goals, declared by We the People. No where does the Preamble grant any authority to God or religion.
The articles that outline the institutions and methods of governance follow. There are no duties or authority for clergymen or God therein. It stipulates that the slave trade will end in 1808. The founders expected slavery to dwindle to termination. Lincoln could have sacrificed his political ambitions and negotiated for the Thirteenth Amendment, adopted on December 6, 1865, only 8 years after Lincoln tragically invoked the Declaration.
If Lincoln had chosen not to unconstitutionally trump the US Constitution by citing the Declaration, his political focus might have avoided the Civil War.
Politicians who involve religion in governance are a bane to the people and their nation. Politicians should keep their religion private and citizens should keep their religions private. Non-religious people should not be forced to suffer the burden of religion.
I must say, it seems to me your “Imagine [Lincoln] saying: ‘Lets look at the research guys. Science says slavery is immoral.’ He wouldn't have got far,” is not instructive at all, and that is being kind.
Also, the New Testament condones slavery. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm .
Phil
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Thanks for the Dred Scott chronology correction.
My sense without researching further is the Scott case amounted perhaps to a lesson-learned. If so, Lincoln's focus on the Declaration, again, would have been wise.
Scott had already lost in it's Constitution-focused battle, which rival Steven Douglas also used. So Lincoln adding this arrow to his argument quiver, which, via proximity to the Constitution where progress was not being made, makes sense..
The Declaration of Independence includes the "all men are created equal" and deserve the rights set forth in the Constitution focus.
Further, slaves understood the language of Biblical liberation, why we hear echoes of the spirituals they sang in their labors still. And many slaves saw the value of the Declaration in support of their "unalienable rights."
The link you provide takes religious Scripture, just as religious fundamentalists do, out of context.
For example, it quotes one line of a parable about slavery that calls for forgiveness. Only by parsing out the one line, it erroneously suggests the scripture condones slavery. Which it does not.
In another it parses three lines from a parable which, again, does not condone slavery.
This parable used the servant/master example, to speak in the contextual vernacular while proving a point that earnest commitment to ones tasks is good and willful neglect of ones work is not good.
It is frustrating that rhetoric like it, which preach to tolerance, use exactly the tactics they complain about.
I stand by my position regards Lincoln's sourcing more than science-only documents. I maintain, if he hadn't, as it was in the Scott case, his points would've been largely ignored. By weaving in all relevant evidence he bolstered his points,
Whether we agree with it or not, the Declaration was relevant.
But, I couldn't agree with you more regards the Preamble. It is, in my view, the purest interpretation of our Founders' intent.
Andrea
Phillip Beaver 10+
Celebration of what?
Phil
Jaime Lubin 10+
Phillip Beaver 10+
I don't think humans should be encouraged to hold beliefs; I believe humans are better off not to believe and thereby remain open-minded to reality. Humans have in common the need to seek understanding. When a person considers something that cannot be resolved, the best option is to admit to self, "I do not know." It is not a problem to add thoughts based on the incomplete understanding.
For example, is there extraterrestrial life? I do not know. However, with perhaps hundreds of billions of solar systems and perhaps other universes, statistics would hint that there may be extraterrestrial life.
Also, I think "celebration of what deserves your beliefs" is a unique usage of "faith," if not by you alone, by a small segment of humankind. Also, it is circular in that it assumes what you believe is deserving. It does not recognize Socrates' question. "He asked whether we call the GOOD good because the gods have done it or whether they have done it because it is GOOD."
A crucial question humankind constructed is, “Does God exist?” The best response is, “I do not know.” (I might add, “I don’t think so.”) The other two options are problematic. “No,” could be wrong; yet reality could change your opinion at any time. “Yes,” is more problematic if you cannot resist the next step—characterizing God: your characterization could be wrong. My understanding of my world is so limited, I cannot risk attempting to extend my misunderstandings. I see through a glass darkly.
I do not condone equivocating "faith" and "religion." When I state my faith, I mean "trust in and commitment to" reality much of which is unknown. You have helped me understand that I celebrate that faith, and I thank you.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Phil
Jason Kather 10+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IePirrYBP_s
An hour long, but very much worth watching.
Tanzi Gill
Joe Fletcher
Jay Goltz
Jay Goltz
i.e. Turn the other cheek , Don't cast the 1st stone, judge not,. Love your enemy.
The teachings are a wonderful foundation for morality... however they bear little relationship to what you will hear in a modern so called Christian church." This unfortunately is true of many so called church going Christians. I have personal stories that I could even share that would also fit in with this description. Like those that attend church for image or status etc... and who use it for their means. However Christianity is a living relationship with Jesus who lived and died 2000 years ago. If one intentionally follows and believes in him, their actions should be reflective of their beliefs. Jesus taught to be slow to anger, eager to love, and quick to make peace. Obviously this is harder said than done as we have seen; otherwise we would have much more peace in this world today.
Jay Goltz
i.e. Turn the other cheek , Don't cast the 1st stone, judge not,. Love your enemy.
The teachings are a wonderful foundation for morality... however they bear little relationship to what you will hear in a modern so called Christian church." This unfortunately is true of many so called church going Christians. I have personal stories that I could even share that would also fit in with this description. Like those that attend church for image or status etc... and who use it for their means. However Christianity is a living relationship with Jesus who lived and died 2000 years ago. If one intentionally follows and believes in him, their actions should be reflective of their beliefs. Jesus taught to be slow to anger, eager to love, and quick to make peace. Obviously this is harder said than done as we have seen; otherwise we would have much more peace in this world today.
Jay Goltz
But on the issue of animals I would have to agree that it is a very fuzzy area but it too must fall with in some bounds of what is plainly right and what is really wrong. Otherwise, one person may decide that killing animals for pleasure is acceptable while his neighbor sees it as an atrocity. This is a subjective moral example of which neither person would be necessarily right or wrong. I admit that this is a new topic to me though so thanks for bringing it up.
I must ask how are they saying that objective morality can come from science? I do not think I have read on this possibility accept from Sam Harris. Also I do see Jesus as a teacher of moral goodness and ethics and as a person to which we can learn how to apply our moral duties. For instance, cheating on your wife (adultery) is not a good moral thing to do. But Jesus taught that even looking at a woman lustfully causes you to commit adultery with her in your heart. This is saying that by merely looking at a woman lustfully, it creates a tension in the heart that pulls a mans thoughts/thinking away from his wife. In some cases, it leads to physical adultery and adultery is immoral. This I would take as moral duty not to look lustfully at other women. Jesus also spoke about giving to the needy and non-violence from the point of pure love – even for enemies. Reminds me of a wise saying that, “Violence does not cease by more violence but by agape love with fellow man.”
Matthieu Miossec 100+
I'm not really a big fan of thought crimes. I think it's more of a case that if you look at other women lustfully, you're probably not with the right person or you're not cut out for long term relationships. Can you think of any time where you had to consciously stop yourself from looking at a woman lustfully? Personally I can't.
Kenji Gerhardt
For as much as we hear in childhood about "don't judge others until you walk a mile in their shoes," "treat others how you want to be treated" etc., it's hard to understand why we don't apply any of that to the adult world. Morals that are based on experiencing being treated poorly by someone with a lack of moral sense are well informed and generally worth listening to.
As for things that one would rather not ever experience, experience can also inform those morals. If you wouldn't ever want it to happen to you, it's probably morally wrong. If it's similar to an experience that was negative and you have a moral opposition to someone else experiencing what you did, it's probably morally wrong.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Reared a Southern Baptist interpreter of the Bible, as a child I found precious doubt, because the God that was presented felt he needed to coerce believers. (See Revelation 22:18 and Luke 12:8-10; two of many examples.) However, my indoctrination was so strong I could not free myself.
Over 35 years as a chemical engineer, I worked with people from over 40 ethnic backgrounds, many of them motivated by Eastern philosophy or religion, including Christianity. As a Protestant, I longed for them to say something like, "Phil, I am impressed with your goodness and want to understand what motivates it." It never happened. Some conversations, I perceived, justified me to treat them "as I wanted to be treated": I practiced the Great Commission.
For example, I said to Kishor, "Have you met Jesus?"
He answered, "I don't understand the question."
I said, "Is Jesus your Lord and savior?"
He confidently said, "No. I have studied many prophets and pray to Jesus, but that's as far as I would go."
Then he asked, "What do you mean by heaven?"
I answered, "Eternal life with Jesus and all people God gave Him to save."
He responded, "That could happen, but I'd be pleased to be reincarnated a better human or higher being."
After a couple experiences like that I began to feel arrogant questioning another human being’s inspiration and for the first time in my life (maybe I was 45) saw non-Christians as human beings as valuable as me. Later, I began to see their inner peace—not questioning my religion--as in fact superior to mine. Not long after that, I became not a believer but a human being (now 68) and member of the community of living species. My faith is in reality, unknown as it is.
Does my story relate to your "third way?"
Phil
Cliff Nzombato
Colleen Steen 500+
I think/feel that all of us as part of a global community are the victims, recipients and participants of morality?
Phillip Beaver 10+
If you choose, pursue spirituality to its end: If you can't raise the dead, try enumerating past lives: see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOk0tZHwCs4&feature=fvwrel . (It takes about 1.5 hrs but is worth the time.)
Believe in the Dalai Lama and dust off non-believers like me ! If that does not justify dusting me off, remain faithful to the cause and find a way to dust me off -- if you want to.On the other hand, you can accept that some people have considered these phantasms and have chosen faith in reality, unknown as it may be.
I think religion is no good: find faith in reality. If you can’t, please make room in world governance for those of us who can. Accommodate us, I beg you—for goodness’ sake.
In the meantime, keep enjoying the benefits of technology, such as being able to assert that you can recall your past encarnations right there on youtube.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
Here’s just one example. A boss called me to his office and said, “You indicated that we are not recognizing your contributions. You have a reputation for changing things. I have a plant expansion that has been designed over the last two years by two excellent chemical engineers. Your task is to review but not change the project, oversee purchase of the equipment, oversee installation, then restart the plant, on-time, in budget. If you accomplish those goals, I will see to it that you are recognized.” I gladly accepted the job.
After reviewing the plant and the expansion scope, I contacted the chemical engineer who was operating the existing plant. When I asked if there had ever been a reportable incident—an injury or an environmental impact, he initially said, “No.” A few minutes later, he said, “About five years ago, we had an overpressure and released on odorous gas that was noticed.”
We investigated the incident by experiments that proved there had been a runaway reaction. We then designed some experiments to measure the limits of a runaway reaction and realized that the new, larger reactor could explode.
With the laboratory data, we designed a patented pressure relief system that assures public safety. In addition, we redesigned the reaction sequence so that a runaway was not possible.
These changes required a 15% budget overrun, six months delay, and lost sales due to the expansion delay.
I still have the letter of gratitude for the new reactor design, and I rose to the level “Technical Advisor,” which on pay scale is equivalent to a supervisor.
Religion coerces people to favor believers and dust off non-believers. It's no good.
Phil
Larry Holmgren
Basic Definitions of Science: If it's green or wiggles, it's biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's physics.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me!
Phillip Beaver 10+
Chistianity may be good for some, but it is past time for Christians to recognize that some thoughtful people reject Christianity because they personally are committed to empathy toward all humans. I am one of those. I am a non-believer who demands accomodation in this world. I offer nothing but intolerance for religion's attempts to coerce me or oppress me.
Not that I need justification to decide my preferences, but some of the important literature follows:
Christians:
Luke 14:25: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”
Luke 12:51: Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
Secularists:
Empathy is first an intellectual activity. Not every person participates, for some people prefer division. Empathy’s greatest glory is that it can neither do, nor suffer, wrong to or from any person. Empathy shuns force, for people exercise empathy in free will. Where there is unity, there is justice. (Phil Beaver, 10/24/11, adapted from Plato, “Symposium,” Agathon’s speech, about 385 BCE)
In these two references from ancient literature we see the basis for Christian division of humankind contrasted with secular empathy for alll but those who choose division. I reject Christianity and do not recommend religion for anyone.
Believers owe it to non-believers and themselves to find a way to accomodate non-believers.
The time for pretense has long passed.
I look forward to your coments and would welcome change (having been a Christian until my early fifties, I obviosly am a candidate for change when facing reality).
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
We gave up on the Saints game at 21: nothing. I’m sure the best part of the drive was the focused conversation.
I think I see one difference in our languages. When I write “science,” you think “scientists.”
Consider nuclear power. It existed before people discovered it: the sun is a natural nuclear reactor. To credit/blame people for nuclear power is thus an error.
On Einstein’s blunder being exposed by Edwin Hubble, people do not prevent the progress of science. Science marches on regardless of an individual’s ethics. Science always exposes unethical researchers.
The products of science are discovery, technology, and understanding. The products are available to every human, equally.
Neither MDs nor stock analysts are scientists. Each of them examines information and makes the best judgment they can.
The scientists who claim the role of science is to judge information are either ignorant or liars. Science operates on evidence that is repeatable. An apple falls from a tree at an acceleration rate of 32.2 feet per second squared no matter how heavy the apple or how far it falls. Statistical studies indicate that prayer does not help medical results and the researchers present the results of the study as questionable indication—not fact. In science, there’s no judgment involved—only repeatable facts.
In contrast, religion imagines an issue, makes an assumption about the issue, constructs a doctrine about the assumption regarding the issue, and tries to live according to the construct. Believers are compelled to support the originator: the clergy. Science eventually disproves the issue or the assumptions about it, eliminating the basis of the religion. Of course, the religion tries to survive by denial of science.
Please tell me about religions that do not claim to know what no one knows.
I want to learn more.
Phil
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Agreed, nuclear energy emerges from natural processes.
Disagreed, that people "do not prevent" the progress of science.
To be true, you'd need a bivalent truth that people do not abet the progress of science. Through communication of observations and conclusions scientists infer, they both progress and abet science.
If people don't imagine and prevent "natural" science progress, we might as well throw the towel in on cancer, etc., research.
Further, not holding people accountable for nuclear weapons is akin to not blaming people for religious evils. Without engagement and communication by people who interface with them, weapons used by people in institutions like religions and militaries would never be employed.
Regards research on prayer's effect on healing:
You are understating the net research findings. I presume you are referring to intercessory prayers--appeals for divine help. Their biological effects are inconclusive.
However, the biological effect of the practice of prayer (intercessory or meditative) both alone and/or in community as well as the psycho-social benefits of religious affiliation has been proven to have positive impacts on health measurements.
An easy way to understand is though how stress reactions work. Stress hormones produce cortisol. Cortisol overloads weaken the immune system, leading to both specific and systemic physical breakdowns. Meditation and prayer, as well as sustained relationships and sense of belonging all reduce cortisol levels. Reduced cortisol improves biological function. Which, in turn, improves healing. These can have positive impacts as preventive and prescriptive agents.
A religion that doesn't claim to know all: Universalist Unitarian.
And finally, a Q that occurs to me: How many scientists haven't learned or worked with religious institutions?
Consider:
Theist Isaac Newton, apple-falls-from-tree scientist.
Atheist Steven Hawking, member of Vatican Academy of Science.
Andrea
Phillip Beaver 10+
My point about nuclear energy existing and its discovery being inevitable and it’s best that the “good guys” discovered it first makes a transition from science to politics. From Robert Oppenheimer to Harry S. Truman and the defeat of Adolph Hitler.
See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/oppenheimer-transcript/ . There, we read:
“President Harry Truman believed that national security depended on keeping nuclear technology secret. Oppenheimer, along with nearly every other nuclear scientist, disagreed.
“On October 25, 1945, Oppenheimer met with President Truman to share his concerns. When the President assured his visitor that the Soviets would “never” get the bomb, Oppenheimer became frustrated. “Mr. President,” he said, “I feel I have blood on my hands.”
“Blood on his hands,” Truman complained later, “Damn it, he hasn’t half as much blood on his hands as I have. You just don’t go around bellyaching about it.”
Scientists position themselves wrongly when they mix science and politics. And vice-versa.
I agree with you fully: 1) intercessory prayer has not been conclusively studied and 2) prayer motivates some believers to overcome health problems. Other motivators are stronger, for example, consciousness that your family depends on you to live and contribute.
“Universal Unitarian” is in itself a claim to exclusivity. The Baton Rouge church flies the flag “Tolerance.” I fruitlessly presented there an essay on its origins and harm to them. TED excelled with the conversation, “Tolerance is insufficient: I suggest respect.”
Tragically, Newton spent the last part of his life trying to apply his skills to prove the Bible. I have listened to Hawking and can’t detect favor for belief. I think another interesting question is: How many scientists hold religion in high esteem? Neil deGrasse Tyson is surprised any scientists are religious.
Thanks again,
Phil
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
A scientist friend of mine is a Universalist Unitarianism leader. It's chock full of scientists. Including leaders of secular research universities.
Prayer/meditation may, as you say, motivate believers to overcome health problems.
But motivation is far from the entire scientific effect of mediation/prayer, which has little to do with cognitive motivation and much, if not everything, to do with quantifiable but non-cognitive biological responses.
As is evidenced by things like the high incidence of preventable heart disease. Cognitive/behavioral cures can be among some of the least successful. Notably, risk factors for these diseases, in spite of overwhelming scientific research, are increasing, not decreasing in recent decades.
My sister and brother-in-law are in cardiology at Mayo Clinic. My brother-in-law does scientific research. His father did transformative research on cholesterol in the 70s, so widely known, it amounts to "Heart-Care 101" worldwide.
My brother-in-law, sister and their colleagues have rafts of evidence that even when patients families beg them to change, even when the patient is scared witless by the statistics that scientists point to to show them they are likely to die if they don't change their behaviors like smoking, overeating, etc., a statistical minority of people will actually make significant changes to improve their health.
My sister, in heart failure -- the last stop for patients, prescribes as a matter of course, along with scientific remedies, a spiritual one: purpose.
She is convinced people getting involved in something beyond themselves can change health in remarkable ways.
A mission to undo religion and faith clouds the objective analysis of them. Respect for the strengths of both science and religion seems best.
Andrea
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Personally, I'd rather be the person who resists nuclear bomb proliferation, than the father of the atomic bomb.
Oppenheimer was considered a technocrat scientist who used his professional credentials to influence government policy. Most directly by consulting with the fascist Nazi government in Germany, and, as you note, the US government.
Ironically, the moment his first test bomb exploded, what came to Oppenheimer's mind were religious phrases expressing faith mystery and omniscient power:
"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one (...) I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
If science is used to judge morality, who will judge whether science is in cahoots with megalomaniacs and ethnic-claensers like Hitler?
After his fall from grace, Oppenheimer himself was exceedingly concerned with how scientific research -- as his on nuclear weapons -- can devastate humanity. In fact, he joined Einstein and numerous other scientists who deeply question the absolutist belief that science is incorruptible.
He did a series of lectures on this theme called "The Hope of Order." Notice, he uses a faith-implying term "hope" not a scientific-fact implying term to set up his thesis.
This, the thesis born in the imagination of a scientist, as all research begins. An "imagined" thesis -- which is akin to your point that religion is begun by imagined issues.
issues, theses? Are they not in this frame parallel constructs?
Whatever the case, Oppenheimer, like many scientists who are capable of higher-order reasoning which calls on them to reflect on their former expertise, in hind-sight often find their high-minded science lacked humane understanding.
I would say that "something" is the ability to judge self as quickly as the ability to judge other.
A problem, I imagine, self-righteous experts of both science and religion suffer and propagate about equally.
Andrea
Jaime Lubin 10+
Phillip Beaver 10+
I wish we knew Einstein's definition of "religion." Some have said it is similar to Spinosa's--"His extremely naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being and knowledge serve to ground a moral philosophy centered on the control of the passions leading to virtue and happiness. They also lay the foundations for a strongly democratic political thought and a deep critique of the pretensions of Scripture and sectarian religion." from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/ . I do not know.
If we had to do away with the words "science" and "religion," respectively, I'd choose "understanding" based on repeatable evidence and "assumption" based on intellectual construct. For example, Einstein's assumption that the universe is static was alright, but when he used a fudge factor to try to force his mathematics to agree with his assumption, he became not a scientists, but a religionist.
I appreciate your writing but don't understand. What do you mean by "faith"?
Phil
Jaime Lubin 10+
Phillip Beaver 10+
Sorry for delay. We attended a “Sunday at the Park” dance—a great feature of Baton Rouge fall.
Again, you ignore my concerns; they are not easy.
Turning to your concerns again, Gibran dreamed about peace being contagious just as Lincoln dreamed about governance by the governed.
Multi-faith clergy exclude my religion: faith in reality, most of which is not known: When I do not know something it is best to admit to myself I do not know.
My claims are not passing: every clergy rejects my company the moment they learn where my faith has been placed. Well . . . they would let me buy them lunch to discuss it. No clergyperson can withstand faith in reality. Your friend’s committee is all clergy--does not include an open minded person of faith in reality, and there is a reason for it: I call the question before they are ready to answer. And "Freethinkers" do not want to associate with a person who claims he does not know that God does not exist—claims "no God" is a leap of faith he cannot take. I insist that they not bash believers--be welcoming toward my Catholic wife.
Regardless of its arguments, no church will again dissuade me from what I am: a human being and member of the community of living species. And no church will again convince me to place my faith anywhere but in reality. To place my faith in God would require me to turn my back on reality, unknown as it is.
What I want is for the clergy to admit they are a heavy burden to humankind. The only way that can happen is for believers to demand inclusion of non-believers.
It is alright to claim God exists. However, people who take the next step—describing or characterizing the God--may be taking regrettable risk. That is the clergy’s second greatest fault—willfully taking that risk. Their greatest fault is persuading people to follow.
Phil
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Sounds like lovely day in LA.
I'm sorry you feel I'm ignoring your comments. I'm not. I'm only asking you to see clergy as as human as scientists, you, I and we all are.
There are clergy who admit their religions have and do abet evil. This isn't to say you must orient your Self around their reconciliation efforts. Nor -- in any way -- to suggest that you conform to anything but your experience of your reality, which I know is shared by many. Including me.
Only to point out that reconciliation for religious evils is not anathema to many.
Today, the Dalai Lama was prohibited from entering Africa because government officials there feared his presence there would offend China. This from the government that under Nelson Mandela created the truth in reconciliation process to atone for ethnic cleansing.
One church: the Universalist Unity church which a scientist friend of mine is a leader of, which sees atheism and secular humanism as equally important beliefs And, above all, as you do -- calls for it's community to learn and understand, not conform, to fellow humans beliefs.
But, with all this said, I do much appreciate your passion and defense about how characterizing God as a delimited and absolutely defined entity can, has and still can hurt many people. And, I could not agree with you more: followers of any doctrine are at risk from it's leaders who coerce their follower-ship.
I trust you'll correct me if I'm still not getting your point. And appreciate your presence to this debate. I'm not sure I feel we are as far away from each other as you feel. But do respect that you feel that way. And, am willing to continue learning what I'm missing.
Andrea
Phillip Beaver 10+
I appreciate your response. I hope your day is lovely, too.
I am not the best writer, and my message is not easy to receive, let alone understand. Perhaps our parallel understandings can be realized by directly discussing each of these points:
Humans live together and equally face humankind’s unknowns. Agree? (typical)
Science helps humankind without favoritism or judgment. Pseudo-science is a bane.
Religion empowers diverse clergy over diverse believers--excludes non-believers. Religions claim to know what no one knows, causing an immoral division of humankind.
Believers ruin governance for everyone, including the clergy: Abraham Lincoln’s dream, governance “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is rendered impossible. For example, attend the seventh inning stretch during this evening’s Baseball World Series Game and listen to the heartfelt propaganda: "God Bless America". I could brook "God Bless Humankind," but only against my wishes. I think the people, believers and non-believers, are responsible and accountalble.
Believers control religion (are "co-dependents" to the clergy) and have the responsibility to include non-believers in governance as they are—no conversions, persuasion, or coercion. Let non-believers live in inclusive peace, under the rule of written law.
These are only my opinions and earnest pleas on behalf of non-believers. I look forward to your opinions, and a direct response to each point would lend understanding and perhaps change.
Phil
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
I'm not a MLB fan but watched the Saints tonight with my son, after a beautiful Sunday drive.
Re: Humans live together and equally face humankind’s unknowns. Yes, agreed.
Re: Science helps humankind without favoritism. Sometimes, yes. Always, no.
Ie: PhD, MD friends tell me medicine favors people with money.
Re: Pseudo-science is a bane. Agreed, yes.
Re: Science helps humankind without judgement. Sometimes, yes. Always, no.
Ie: nearly every scientist I know says judgement is exactly what science calls for. It takes information and judges it.
Re: Religion empowers diverse clergy over diverse believers. Often, yes. Always, no.
Re: Religion claims to know what no one knows. Sometimes, yes. Always, no.
Re: Religion causes immoral divisions of humankind. Often, yes.
Let me try to "score" this--
I agree:
Humans live together and equally face humankind’s unknowns. Religion causes immoral divisions of humankind. And pseudo-science is a bane.
I disagree:
Science is best-qualified to pass judgement on what is moral and what is not. There's too much contrary evidence.
Including respected researcher Daniel Kahnaman's views on "The validity Illusion" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/dont-blink-the-hazards-of-confidence.html?pagewanted=4). He says:
"(S)tatistical evidence of our failure should have shaken our confidence in our judgments of particular candidates, but it did not. It should also have caused us to moderate our predictions, but it did not. We knew as a general fact that our predictions were little better than random guesses, but we continued to feel and act as if each particular prediction was valid." (...) "Expertise is learned from prolonged experience with good feedback on mistakes."
He finds distanced analysis doesn't allow for good feedback. And prefers "adversarial collaboration." I'd add, this takes significant insight and patience by both/all collaborators.
Which, I appreciate you for having with me!
Andrea
Phillip Beaver 10+
It is alright to claim God exists. However, people who take the next step—describing or characterizing the God--may be taking risk they will regret. That is the clergy’s second greatest fault—willfully taking that risk. Their greatest fault is persuading people to follow.
The clergy will not distract me again. Now I want relief from the financial, legal, and war burdens the clergy create. I appeal to believers for relief.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
Sorry for the delay. We attended a “Sunday at the Park” dance—a great feature of Baton Rouge fall.
Again, you ignore my concerns. They are not easy.
Turning to your concerns again, Gibran dreamed about peace being contagious just as Lincoln dreamed about governance by the governed.
Multi-faith clergy exclude my religion: faith in reality, most of which is not known: When I do not know something it is best to admit to myself I do not know.
My claims are not passing: every clergy rejects my company the moment they learn where my faith has been placed. Well . . . they would let me buy them a lunch to discuss it. No clergyperson can withstand faith in reality. Your friend’s committee is all clergy--does not include an open minded person of faith in reality. There is a reason for it: I call the question before they are ready to answer. The same is true of so called Freethinkers. They do not want to associate with a person who claims he does not know that God does not exist—claims "no God" is a leap of faith he cannot take. With me around, they feel uncomfortable bashing believers. (I demand they be inviting toward my Catholic wife.)
Regardless of its arguments, no church will again dissuade me from what I am: a human being and member of the community of living species. And no church will again convince me to misplace my faith from reality. To place my faith in God would require me to turn my back on reality—whatever it is.
What I want is for the clergy to admit they are a heavy burden to humankind. The only way that can happen is for believers to demand accomodation for non-believers.
There are among humans three types: 1) women and men who seek understanding and 2) clergymen who posses all knowledge--so they say in their diverse ways.