I have been unable to see how secular or religious philosophies, whether of Liberalism or of Christianity, can reasonably claim, in themselves, to represent either Righteousness or God. That said, I do sense a significant difference: Liberals and other secularists tend to express that there does not abide any Source of higher values, so they tend not even to try to foster coherent moral philosophies, or to try to draw or enforce lines against the slippery slope to social disintegration. Thus, it becomes immediately incoherent for them to prescribe or mock any choice or purpose. For them, all is HYPOCRISY (and most of all, themselves). Christians believe there does abide such a Source, and do seek to appreciate appropriate limits for guiding behaviors and aspirations. For them, all else is VANITY.
I am more comfortable with most Christians. This is true, even though I often wish more Believers apprehended that their sacred books are models for guiding an evolving and unfolding search for enlightened decency, dignity, responsibility, and freedom. (Except upon contrivance of wordplay, such books do not, any more than "the book of contextual experience," describe or prescribe life for a perfect mortal. They "only" lay out an approach for people of good will to respect in context. And that is enough.)
Before one can hope to explicate any possible consensus for that which is needed to sustain decent civilization, one needs first to believe or apprehend that there abides a Source against which to measure, discuss, and reconcile what is meant by decent civilization. To have no such belief or apprehension is to make peace with the deconstruction of civilization. Such deconstruction may temporarily relieve the stress of hard living, but it strikes against the heart of what is intuitively obvious (what C.S. Lewis called "inside information"): We are thrown together as shareholding participants within a field of consciousness. I doubt there is any way out; not even in death.
Consciously, we experience our models. We don't "approach" our models, as things in themselves, but as experiences unfolding before the sensations of our consciousness. Our consciousness avails itself of forms by which to sense and experience Information, which we model --- qualitatively, quantitatively, fuzzily, transitionally, and incompletely --- as if the Information we sense and interpret were Substantive. Some aspect greater and more encompassing than us synchronizes in feedback to engage us in an unfolding dance of apprehensions and choices. In respect of that dance, we assume, signify, and communicate --- as if the Reality of the context that presents and unfolds around us were just and only as it appears and presents to our senses. Yet, everytime we try to approach and capture that which we experience with our consciousness, we find it consists only in relationships, including relationships with our consciousness, so that a Complete comprehension of it recedes from our capture, sort of like a rainbow, rather than like a thing in itself. We don't really "approach" "things" in dimensions of space-time. Rather, we experience perspectives of them.
How do we "approach" civilization (or God?)? I doubt that we "really" or dimensionally approach any substantively measurable thing in itself. But I do believe that each perspective of consciousness lives, chooses, and reconciles in respect of a Higher Source. If there is no real, substantive, thing-in-itself for us to "approach," then may there abide a qualitative or enlightening purpose for us to aspire towards, by our feedback as we acknowledge appreciation of that which has been, and is being, availed before us, by a synchronizing, reconciling, holistic aspect of Consciousness?
NOTE: Do Secular Humanists (and fellow traveling socialists) mean to advocate that there abides a moral principle that is common to every perspective of human consciousness, but that such principle is not guided by any common, perspective of holism (i.e., God)? However, if this common moral principle abides to interfunction with us, to guide the good will of every decent and empathetic perspective, and if it does not abide in measurable Substance, but only in qualitative Information, then what is the morally purposing Source of such Information, if not "God?" When Secular Humanists ridicule notions of God, while wishing to substitute a notion of a unifying principle of Empathy (or Love), are they confused about, or really making, any distinction that makes any difference? Aren't both notions (Spiritualist vs. Humanist) equally challenging to a survival-of-the-fittest notion of natural science (Top Predator)? Are they saying we "should" be decently empathetic only when being so is conducive to our survival? If so, except upon intuition, belief, or identiy-investment that my consciousness may in some quality be connected beyond the mortality of my body, WHY should I or WE or Any Individual CARE whether anything is conducive to the sustaining of human civilization? And if one does so intuit or believe, isn't that necessarily religious or spiritual?
5 comments:
Citizen 1 (Believer) believes there abides a Source for inspiring, guiding, and reconciling moral values that help sustain decent civilization, so that there is less need of arbitrary governmental intrusiveness. Citizen 2 (Barbarian) believes there abides no such a source, and that the only worthwhile value is to get yours, by all means necessary, while the getting is good. Citizen 1 believes we are guided to the good, insofar as we are receptive to a Reconciler of the good of the individual with the good of civilization. Citizen 2 believes there is no such a Reconciler, and that the only guide is self interest, free of any ideal concerning what may constitute decent civilization (much less what is needed to sustain it). Citizen 1 is told by elites that his values are irrelevant to the secular, political, public square. Citizen 1 is also told that the entire economy of America will be flushed, if he and those like him do not yield to the beliefs (and incoherent system of faith) of people like Citizen 2.
This leads me to ask: If Citizen 2 is concerned with no higher good, then why should I listen to his impassioned appeals regarding the kind of economy I should be concerned with? If there abide no higher, equalizing, reconciling values, then why do people like Citizen 2 tend to be so passionate about their equal legal or moral "rights?" I can think of two reasons: (1) Either they haven't matured to comprehend the incoherence of their position; or (2) they have been spoiled to believe in nothing more than subjugating as many others as possible to themselves, by all means necessary, even by incoherent yelling, ridiculing, blog banning, book burning, parading, and tantrum throwing.
Re -- "So if a belief in God is a central concept for a civilization, then ...."
A belief in "God" can be implicated, as in a belief that there abides a moral principle that is common to every perspective of human consciousness. Japan is not noted for being accepting of non-Japanese. So, race seems to be among the organizing principles for their civilizing morality. Thus, they have an organizing principle of sorts.
When Secular Humanists ridicule notions of God, while wishing to substitute an alternative notion, such as an implication of a unifying principle of empathy, are they really making a distinction that makes a difference? Aren't both notions (Spiritualist vs. Humanist) equally challenging to a survival-of-the-fittest notion of natural science (Top Predator)?
Are they saying we "should" be decently empathetic (civilized) only when being so is conducive to our survival? If so, except upon intuition or belief that our consciousness may in some quality be connected beyond the mortality of our bodies, WHY should anyone CARE whether anything is conducive to the sustaining of human civilization? When one does intuit or believe that one should care, isn't that being necessarily religious, or at least spiritual?
From A.T., Re: "... libertarians rely upon a universal moral principle that can be applied regardless of one’s particular religious beliefs (or lack thereof). That principle is the non-aggression principle, which states simply that no person has the right to initiate aggression upon another."
Well, natural scientists derive no such a principle or "right" under their brand of natural selection! You're not questioning the standard model of indifferent evolution, are you? If there abides such a right not to be aggressed against, its basis is not in objective science or substantively measurable empiricism. Its basis, for mankind, is in nothing much more than supernatural faith. That doesn't sound so different from fundamental aspects of the Christian religon, which extols turning the other cheek. In large part, many Christians happen to share such faith, but flesh it out with a book of parables. Otherwise, generalities slide into tolerating every poison to civilization. Whether Christian or Libertarian, the hard part is moving past generalities (such as "non-aggresson" and "love your neighbor"), to that minimal structure of government that can actually sustain decent civilization in a world filled with hostile neighbors. This is the part that escapes fundies --- both among Christians and among Libertarians. And no, legislating to force government to actually incentivize behaviors that on their face appear to broadly experienced citizens not to merit such incentives is not "small government." It is governance with an intrusive agenda.
Libertarians believe in "do no harm." They believe that is a universal ethos that "just is." They can't find or measure a "do not harm" substantive particle. So, evidently, they do believe that there do exist some aspect or aspects that is/are purely qualitative, beyond substantive measure. If this is not an example of reasoning from faith, however intuitive it may by, it would be hard to think of a better example. The difference, if there is one, between Libertarians and Spiritual Believers is that Believers also intuit that there is more to the story than "just is." They think whatever the Source of "just is," that IT is unifying, reconciling, and potentially and actively interfunctioning with us. They think that it helps to guide us in how to put flesh on the notion of "do no harm" to meditate, pray, and commune together in respect of that ethos and Source. They think that Source may be an aspect of higher, perhaps encompassing, Consciousness, perhaps even a Field of Consciousness that defies measure. Regardless, upon mature reflection, both beliefs tend to lead to a similar mores, both are supernatural in that they concern aspects that defy quantitative or substantive measure or prediction. Indeed, upon mature reflection, one wonders whether there is much ado about little that is different. Apart from the fact that Believers tend to commune and work at their ethos more than merely as after the fact rationalization for whatever may happen to bring them the most immediate gratification.
Libertarians, when it comes to social rights and duties, seem first and most to think of rights and entitlements, and begrudgingly of duties and responsibilities. Example: When noticing that society has seen fit to incentive families with tax breaks, Libertarians, instead of considering the potential value of incentiving the development of the next generation, which will support them in their old age, tend to think first that they should be equally entitled, regardless of whether they participate in the rearing of any children. Perhaps they tend not to have thought much about what duties are required in order to sustain a decent civilization. It seems "rights" not to be harmed by others "just are" (perhaps like Civilization "just is"?), but as to duties, not so much. Everyone notices the economy is being flushed. Social Concervatives, but not Libertarians, also notice how coincidental this is with many values of decency and modesty being contemporaneously flushed.
As to Adam Smith, before the Wealth of Nations, he wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments, noting how freedom is rooted in the ability of an individual to pursue his self-interest while commanding himself based on natural law (notice how our Founders often spoke of "Nature's God"), within which we often empathize and feel sorrow when we see sorrow in others. At bottom, Empathy drives the Invisible Hand of Nature, and drives it best when individuals are less short sighted in weighing their entitlements over their responsibilities.
Under Adam Smith, do Libertarians and Secular Humanists mean to advocate for a supernatural faith, beyond empirical measure, that there abides a moral principle that is common to every perspective of human consciousness, but that such principle is not guided by any Reconciling Holism (i.e., God)? Well, if this common moral principle abides to interfunction with us, to guide the good will of every empathetic perspective, and if it does not abide in measurable Substance, but only in qualitative Information, then what should be conceptualized as the morally purposing Source of such Information, if not God ... or "Nature's God?"
Post a Comment