Do trees make mistakes? Has a flower ever committed a faux pas? Alas, with freedom comes the ability to . . . do stupid things. Good things too, sure. But who bats one thousand?
While doing some yard work recently, I mulled over past personal “errors in judgment.” The first thing that occurred to me was that the errors weren’t truly “in judgment,” for the judgment came after-the-fact. While on the treadmill of the the actual moment we brainy bipeds usually somewhat ironically fly by the proverbial seat of our pants. Then see what happens. Oops. Didn’t mean that to happen.
In terms of my own errors, I usually can see them, or, in the least see how they might elicit the judgment of not good from others. But not immediately. No. It can take awhile. Sometimes a few seconds, other times full months. Inflamed emotions must settle, bones of contention resolved. That takes time. And sometimes time is insufficient and full resolution impossible.
What I try to remember about others — so I may forgive them — and about myself — ditto — is that very infrequently is the intent behind a personal error malevolent. Instead, there most frequently resides ignorance, blind spots, lack of practiced social skills, personal quirks, etc. Nothing to cause hatred, nothing to inspire intolerance.
I guess. But then again, I’m human. What do I know?
The above NASA pic reveals what we could see without the clouds and ambient light normally obscuring our vision. I’m not sure what coastline that is, but let’s call it New Found Lands.
Stars and galaxies — the backdrop to our relatively puny spinning planet. Far out, man!
Although I find existence to lack meaning with a big “M,” it does strike me as wonder-full.
[recycled post - first appeared here]
In addition to being individuals with unique needs and desires, human beings are social animals. We are drawn to groups: we feel comfort when part of a group; we live and work as group members. Besides personal reasons for being, we can have social reasons for being. Social reasons include the ideas and customs that justify and maintain group formation and inclusion.
A group’s canon and beloved texts may not reflect the current values of its members, yet they nonetheless provide an umbrella to converge beneath. What the group provides and encourages among its members is a product of the group’s values. Religion does not so much determine values as it proposes potential values and provides the reasons for the dissemination and encouragement of the values the group and/or its leaders already holds or wants to hold. That is why there are Christian groups of all stripes: liberal, conservative, peaceful, violent, you name it.
As a mildly introverted person, I feel no strong push to participate in group activities beyond family gatherings. The groups I do join and enjoy generally involve education and/or perceived threats to secular education: freethought, humanistic, atheistic. I have other concerns and emotions that draw me, with some success, to groups such as the Audubon Society. My reason for being an Audubon Society member includes a conservationist bent and an avid interest in birds.
While I believe it is inappropriate to poke your uninvited nose into personal reasons for being, social reasons are another matter. Social groups carry political clout. They also lead to the drawing of lines between “us” and “them.” To those outside a group, if a group’s social reason for being is benign to society at large, or better yet – beneficial – that is certainly a different story than groups whose reasons set them at odds with others. If the social raison d’être of a group threatens non-members, the appropriate response is open criticism. Dangerous values, and any reasoning used to justify them, should be opposed.
In the wake of the recent controversial books mentioned in part II of this three-part series, I have heard a number of criticisms. Two of these could be worded as 1) People need religion. You shouldn’t try to take it away from them. 2) People aren’t going to change; religion is here to stay. In an issue of Free Inquiry magazine, Sam Harris invited readers to offer their answers to charges like these. Here are mine as they pertain to the theme of religion as a raison d’être.
Don’t take away their religion seems akin to saying don’t take away their reasons because people need reasons. When stripped of reasons, however, people don’t respond, gee, now I’m reasonless, I guess I’ll wander aimlessly through life or maybe just end it all. They find or create others – given time and opportunity.
Some well-intentioned thinkers have suggested that atheists/scientists should synthesize cogent and appealing alternative reasons in anticipation of need. While publicly condemning dangerous/unhealthy values is justified, determining which reasons and values a person should hold, or even giving a sales pitch about the benefits of your own, strikes me as arrogant.
On a tangential note: when we do criticize, must we “make nice”? For the validity of an argument, delivery matters not. But in terms of persuasiveness, it does. Yet we mustn’t forget that there are many different degrees and types of believers. Each human being has a unique personality and differing tastes. To effectively reach others, rather than a unanimous chorus, perhaps numerous distinct voices would succeed better: brazen, polite, romantic, irreverent, academic, diplomatic, tentative, enraged, comic, etc.
As for the second claim, that “people are not going to change,” I ask, has the monotheism of developed countries been practiced by all cultures for all of time, and is thus inevitable? A wider anthropological and historical perspective will show greater plasticity, over time, than is presumed.
Furthermore, with little effort we can discover that it is possible for individuals to live, gather, and act for reasons other than religion. Millions do. What are these reasons? They are familial, political, humanistic, scientific, entrepreneurial, hedonistic, philanthropic, etc. To argue that religion and religion alone provides reasons for being is to assign it a special, undeserved status. From the data I’ve seen, less-religious social groups and nations tend to do just fine in all important measures of health and happiness.
When discussing religion, whether in terms of the danger it poses (motivating/justifying violence, placing barriers of dogma before the possibility of a more accurate understanding of the universe) or in terms of potential benefits it may provide (rallying individuals to a humane cause, bringing personal comfort and health benefits) we are essentially referring to the work of social groups bonded by shared concerns. The frequently superfluous official creeds and supernatural elements can distract us from the more crucial issue: the values embedded in a person or a group’s reasoning about life and the world.
[recycled post - first appeared here]
The past few years have seen the release of a number of controversial books about religion (such as Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, Daniel Dennet’s Breaking the Spell, and Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion). Thanks to these books — books I may not wholly agree with — my thinking has been stimulated. I have come to view religion as something that provides both a personal and a social raison d’être. A reason for being.
On the personal level, religious beliefs and practices can provide meaning, with reasons why and how to live. A personal raison d’être consists of those aspirations and relationships that give life meaning, as well as the activities that generate feelings of awe and/or immersion in something greater. On this level, religion is frequently referred to as spirituality. Many a person will say, I’m not into organized religion, but I am a spiritual person.
Established religions can and do provide ready-made blueprints for personal reasons for being. The personal and the social overlap significantly, but to differing degrees among individuals and cultures. In our highly individualistic culture, believers need not be one-brand shoppers. Rather, beneath the single roof provided by the label “religion,” there are whole aisles dedicated to differing types of belief. Seekers will pick and choose to suit their needs. Sometimes they grab items from separate aisles that don’t necessarily go together: a pint of Jesus, a gallon of Buddha, a quart of Deepak Chopra.
As for this individual, my own raison d’être could be summarized as “to love and to learn.” I don’t need religions in general, or Biblical teachings specifically, to motivate nor guide me in either pursuit. In fact, I believe Bible-based religions might limit how and what I learn and possibly impede to whom I extend a loving intention.
As for the personal raison d’être of my associates and community members: so long as they are not hurting themselves nor harming others, it’s none of my business. That said, if I am dragged or invited into a discussion about values or claims to truth, I’m not going to pretend I concur, nor apportion someone’s values or claims greater respect simply due to the tradition or language their raison d’être may be steeped in.
Much is made of a line between science and religion. To me, a better line to draw is that between public and private. A personal reason for being is necessarily a private thing.
Social reasons for being are another matter, and I will be addressing those in part III of this three-part post.
The following research got me thinking about the “evil weed”:
Legalizing marijuana in California would lower the price of the drug and increase use, study finds
The finding:
Legalizing the production and distribution of marijuana in California could cut the price of the drug by as much as 80 percent and increase consumption, according to a new study by the nonprofit RAND Corporation that examines many issues raised by proposals to legalize marijuana in the state.
As a social libertarian, I’m for the legalization of marijuana. And no, I’m not a user. As I see it, legalizing weed would be a “win” situation in many ways.
Win – Taxes would be generated by its sale, helping states to fund necessary services. Nothing wrong with that.
Win – By eliminating this front on the “war on drugs,” law enforcement resources could be freed up and put to better use. The war, after all, doesn’t seem winnable by an stretch of the imagination. As I see it, it is a huge waste of taxpayer money, police time, and prison space.
Win – The use of a recreational drug no more harmful than alcohol would be de-criminalized. People who simply like to relax and party/chill would no longer face stiff penalties for their choice of intoxicant.
Win – The drug would become an over-the-counter treatment for those who could benefit from its anti-nausea and pain-relieving properties.
But then, as the research pointed out, there could be a potential Lose. Use could increase dramatically. But what would that mean? Would a handbasket of hellish outcomes ensue? Would our economy grind to a halt?
Maybe not. The researchers made this estimation -
If prevalence increased by 100 percent, marijuana use in California would be close to the prevalence levels recorded in the late 1970s.
Hmm. Seems to me the 70′s weren’t a time of social chaos and depravity. Alice, the housekeeper on the Brady Bunch, was never caught smoking a blunt in the laundry room, or anything unthinkable like that! Yes, all those plaid, bell-bottom pants — we don’t want to ever go there again. But my guess is that the vast majority of non-users would stay non-users.
Of course, their are likely many other elements involved. Other ways California and other states could win or lose. But for the sake of personal freedom alone, I say let’s risk some loss for the sake of the wins.
Recent Comments