Chris : Thanks for the reply. Makes a lot more sense now. Still, there is a problem, for me anyway, based on an observation which many people have made over the years : If I had been born in Japan the likelihood is 90%+ that I would have been raised a Buddhist, if I had been born to a Jewish family in Israel the chances are also over 90 % that I would be Jewish believer, and so on for a Parsi family in Mumbai and their Zoroastrian kids, a Hindu family in Fiji, a Taoist family in Taiwan, and so forth. I once wrote an essay about my adoptive father ( step-dad ) from the Philippines. Given the vagaries of Philippine history, while in actuality he was a nominal Catholic, he could have been Hindu or Buddhist or part of a traditional "Pagan" religion, etc. Things could easily have worked out that way. Well, I get your point. Far better to actually be something rather than ask a million questions about which, if you are lucky, you will come up with a hundred answers, leaving you with "only" 999,900 questions. However, what about my relationships with people of other faiths ? What do I say to them ? That's where I'm coming from. How many religions are represented in all the people whom I have known in my life over the years ? Can't say for sure, but pretty much the whole range of faiths. Have never known, at least known well, a Confucian or a Rosicrucian, but those are among the few exceptions. So, what gives me the assurance that I'm on the right track ? Politics, in some ways is similar. But if religion can sometimes be best answered in terms of faith, and this can be true for the reasons you spelled out, how is this true for politics ? Politics is supposed to be grounded in objective measures of truth in ways that may not apply to the spiritual realm. If you have an experience of the sacred there is no way to argue with it. Understood 100 %. But no-one can say that "In my heart I know that Conservatism / Liberalism / Socialism / Constitutionalism / Libertarianism, etc, is true because of the epiphany I had a few years ago." No-one in their right mind would buy that at all. For your consideration Billy ------------------------------------------- 1/6/2012 10:00:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
------------------------------------------ Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D. Constructive Agreement, LLC [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) P.O. Box 39, Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax ------------------------------------------ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:17 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [RC] [ RC ] The Biology of Left vs Right / What attracts people * * * * * 1/6/2012 8:56:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: Grounding decision-making in quantitative data doesn't seem all that important to me in religion, or to a lesser extent in politics. Chris : Any reasons for your outlook about these areas of life ? Not that I would put it in terms of "quantitative data." I prefer not to think of these things in terms of charts or tables or pages of statistics. But there are other kinds of "solid facts." Take Freud and psychology generally. NOT because Freud was always right, since he was wrong a lot of the time, but his approach recommends itself. Freud’s observations were, in essence, based on case studies. Case studies are legitimate qualitative research tools. Since I am the author of a qualitative research methods textbook for Sage Publications I can hardly discount qualitative research methods. Freud made some great observations and presented them convincingly. Over time, as you note, many of his conclusions seem primitive or wrong, but his approach came from a reasonable scientific base as did those of Adler, Piaget, Erickson, Rogers, etc. When I believe I always want to know why. Is it because the belief has some kind of objective pull, or is it because of long-delayed effects of a trauma I lived through many years ago ? Because my logic is faulty ? Because my knowledge of something is skewed ? That is, for me it is important to test whatever ideas are attractive. When it comes to religion, I think it is reasonable to take an unscientific approach. Faith is sometimes enough. If you have experienced God, then what more proof do you need? In other words, there are reasons why I'm not a Theosophist and not interested in TM and not a member of the Green Party, or whatever. Not just reasons why I have become a Radical Centrist or have critical but ecumenical religious views. The study of religions is different than faith based on experiencing God. Here a historical/scientific approach to discover the core roots of comparative religions is sensible, and to me, interesting. For sure, this is the ideal model of how this works. There are plenty of times when any testing is after the fact. But, still, I'm always interested in being "grounded," as you and Ernie would say. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You know it when you see it, no proof is necessary. I feel sure the same is true for you. But if it isn't, it would be worthwhile to learn why not. Or if it is, why did you phrase things the way you did ? What are you really saying that maybe would be valuable to know ? I am a huge believer in the scientific method. I use it every day; albeit, not in the same way a physicist would test the speed of light. That said, some questions are unanswerable by objective analysis. If the universe was started by the big bang, what set up the conditions for the big bang? Was it God, or something else. I think it is okay to go with a gut-level belief about spirituality and religion and to rely on faith. If we try to go for too much proof we may be thinking ourselves out of core beliefs and values that can be very grounding to ourselves as healthy individuals. As I think of this, alcoholics anonymous comes to mind. The reliance on faith in God is a primary directive in the 12 steps. A lot of people have been helped by thinking... okay, it is time to let go of doubt, to believe, and to use this belief to make my life better. THE TWELVE STEPS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable. 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. 4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. 10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. 11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. 12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs. Chris Curious in Oregon Billy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it is interesting that the eye movements of liberals and conservatives might be different, but it won't make me vote differently. However, when I make life-changing recommendations about how children might live their lives (_www.constructiveagreement.com_ (http://www.constructiveagreement.com/) ), I try to ground my recommendations in the best-available research data. Not only do I study the results of the study, but I also examine the research methods used. Why? The decisions I make are too important for me to rely on just my gut feel. I don't want to be arrogant and think that my personal or instinctive opinion is all that is needed. Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) _[mailto:[email protected]]_ (mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]) On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie Prabhakar Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:00 AM To: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Cc: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) ; [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Subject: Re: [RC] [ RC ] The Biology of Left vs Right / What attracts people to objectivity ? Sent from my iPhone On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:52, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: > What attracts people to objectivity ? Not quite the right word, but I know what you mean. > > Suggestions anyone ? Speaking for myself, the simplest answer is "alienation". I didn't belong either in my home culture of India or my host culture of America. The reason I went into Physics (and Christianity) was largely to find some transcendent truth to ground my identity. And perhaps give me a "safe" place to critique and integrate my group identities. Great question, though. How about the rest of you? E -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
