Faith at the Crossroads of the 21st Century The Quest for Objectivity about Religion By: Billy Rojas . . . Religion is the "third rail" of American politics. Say the wrong thing about religion and a politician has no future in public life. But what if religious faith really matters to you? In that case, silence about religion is a betrayal of your character, a denial of your true self, and a crime against your conscience. . This said, most people are essentially clueless about how to speak about religion, or to write about religion. They are uneducated to the subject, they define it in subjective terms as if objectivity is impossible. They make any number of assumptions that other people do not think are true at all. And they take the view that questions of faith necessarily are private in nature and based on nothing but opinions. However, these views are indefensible. . Not only this, such an outlook is self-defeating. This is true across the board but is especially true with respect to politics. Unless you are educated to religion you cannot have a future in politics, this is the new truth of the 21st century even if we may still be some years from understanding this fact, before the message sinks in and becomes a taken-for-granted truism which no-one would dream of denying for fear of looking like a simpleton. . Before taking these observations further, however, three questions need to be answered: (1) What does any of this have to do with Radical Centrism? A related question is: (2) In what way is the study of religion useful in the world of politics? And we must ask: (3) How can anyone be objective about religion; isn't faith, by definition, a matter of personal experience? In fact, isn't experience -visions, emotions, inexplicable encounters with the unseen- what it is all about, beyond rational analysis? . However, while these questions may seem reasonable to most people, each is based on blissful ignorance of what religion as a phenomenon is really all about. Regardless, precisely because few people know what they are talking about when discussing religion, it is necessary to provide telling answers that break through the misconceptions that get in the way of seeing religion objectively. . Here, then, are the answers to the questions: . (1) Basic to Radical Centrism is the fact that most of the time Left vs. Right views of issues are misleading or even totally wrong in conception. Note that this is about Radical Centrism, not "centrism." As nearly everyone knows, centrism almost always starts with the assumption that the optimal solutions to problems involve compromise, generally half steps that get us to a moderate center that combines some views of Left and Right to arrive at a "blended" result. To be sure, sometimes, now and then, this kind of process is the best we can do. However, the basic principle of Radical Centrism is very different. "RC," as the philosophy is often abbreviated, is about combining the strongest principles or ideas offered by the Left and the Right in such a way that when looked at as a whole what we get is a rational mix of uncompromised ideas that, together, balance out. In most cases this mixture will also include at least a few ideas that cannot be classified as either Left or Right, that are "independent" in character. . Of course, when the issue is religion we may be talking about so-called modernists vs. traditionalists, or the contrast might be between the views of Theravada Buddhists and Mahayana Buddhists, and so forth. Which, by the way, should be enough to tell you that -just in these two examples- we are discussing large numbers of people. Of all Christians in the United States traditionalists outnumber modernists approximately 2: 1 or even more like 3: 1. Of all Buddhists in Asia we are discussing the beliefs and values of believers in Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, and Viet Nam, for the Mahayana, vs. the beliefs of virtually all Buddhists in Thailand, Burma, and Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Laos, who are Theravadins. That is, these kinds of distinctions -and there are many more- are basic to just about all religions and may have little or nothing to do with liberals vs conservatives. Or when there is a connection, as there is in America between modernists and the Left vs. traditionalists and the Right, entire "other" considerations may be involved besides issues that typically exercise political Leftists or political Rightists. . Other examples of important distinctions are those between Mormons who trace their heritage to Brigham Young vs. those who look to Emma Smith, secularized Catholics vs. pietistic Catholics, observant vs. non-observant Jews, Parsi Zoroastrians vs. westernized diaspora Zoroastrians, or politicized Sufis vs. mystical Sufis. But the point can be made more clearly by looking at one case of this phenomenon as it has played out in America... . The conceit of the first generation of ecumenists, basically in the 1950s and 1960s, was that the way forward to promote religions tolerance in the United States was to assume that believers of different faiths should talk together to discuss their differences and meet in the middle. Everyone should be prepared to give up perceived purity of their beliefs and arrive at views based on a new synthesis of ideas, each new principle the product of compromises large and small. It was widely assumed that the only reasonable outcomes would reflect the views of mainline Christian groups even if, in some instances, there might be concessions to Jews, or Baha'is, or Evangelicals, or 'progressive' Hindus. . This did not work, it could not work, and among Christians of the World Council of Churches, it wasn't long before the eastern Orthodox walked out en bloc because of moral issues about which they said many American Protestants were excessively latitudinarian. Meanwhile, all appeals to traditionalists to join the ecumenical movement were dismal failures; they weren't interested and were highly critical of 'liberal' compromises with Hollywood values, critical of liberal interest in economic grievances, and critical of liberal inattention to what we might call the psychological needs of Christians -which they themselves characterized as inexcusable short-shrifting of spiritual experience. . There were also meetings between ecumenical Christians and believers of other faiths but these also pretty much came to nothing even if, here and there, private individuals discovered new truths, arrived at new insights, and found themselves with new friends from other cultures. . What is commonly assumed is that this takes us to an impasse and a necessary admission that nothing can be done. People who take a purely centrist view of these kinds of questions simply do not have any answers. . People who have a Radical Centrist outlook have any number of answers. . This is not to say that Radical Centrist solutions to problems may be regarded as acceptable to institutions. As things are in today's real world that may be very unlikely. However, the fault may have nothing to do with the quality of RC ideas and everything to do with institutional dependence on large sums of money, on legacy effects like seniority of an organization's officers, or its place in the power or prestige system. But a Radical Centrist solution may be very good for an individual or small group. The 'secret' is very simple: Radical Centrism gives you permission to be a contrarian, to think for yourself, to have original ideas. Not for the sake of novelty or trendiness. For the sake of truthfulness. The problem is that -bizarre as it may sound- our culture sometimes regards truth as a liability, not a necessity. This is obvious in politics, of course, which often operates on the basis of lies, deception, evasions, and spin, but this also can be a factor in the realm of religion. For example, which physical miracles reported in the Bible have been verified scientifically? None. This is not to speak of personal spiritual encounters that may change lives dramatically, nor fortuitous coincidences, nor interpretations of real world events that are not necessarily miraculous but that can be understood that way. But did Moses part the Red Sea, did Jesus walk on water, did the walls of Jericho tumble down at the sounding of trumpets, did the Sun stand still in the sky to permit Joshua to win a battle, and so forth? There is zero proof of any such events; they all are fictions, as is the Great Flood, the rising from the dead of a large number of the deceased as reported in the Gospel of Matthew, and a literal reading of the poetic and beautiful story of the star of Bethlehem shining light beams like lasers directly down to a specific location on Earth. Another word for fiction is "lie." Fictions may be white lies, falsehoods told for beneficial effect, it is no problem to take that view in many cases, but the fact is that none of these things happened. Which is a near universal problem because, bad as this is for Bible literalists, it is worse in other religions, most notably Hinduism and some schools of Buddhism. It isn't much of a problem in Islam which claims few miracles per se, but the Koran has another problem, namely falsification of history, like claiming that Alexander was a Muslim, which is preposterous, or asserting that a substitute was nailed to the cross at the crucifixion and that Jesus was spared from death. . There are much greater problems of deception than these however. Scholars now know, for example, that large parts of the Hebrew Bible were deliberately falsified, quite possibly by Ezra, to promote a monotheistic interpretation of ancient religion by editing originally henotheistic scriptures to make them denounce belief in a divine couple, -Yahweh and his Asherah- to demonize the Goddess, and claim that God is a hermit with no desire for the opposite sex. Whatever one thinks of any alternative theology, there is little dispute that the Torah and many other books of the Tanach were heavily edited in the ancient era past and falsified in the process. . Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, and it does not matter if this upsets you or not. The facts speak for themselves. . There are similar problems in the New Testament with whole books, most notably the Pastorals, not written by the Apostle Paul despite claims to his authorship, and with the near impossibility of attributing James to Jesus' brother, considering that this text was written by a Greek speaker who knew literary Greek. James, from every indication, did not receive that kind of education; the conclusion is just about unavoidable that authorship of the Book of James, as supposedly by James, is a case of false attribution. . The question is whether or not you value truth. Do you put truth above other virtues? We can allow for "white lies" and the kinds of fictions essential to drama and mythology, but what about everything else? The fact is that we cannot even address this issue unless we recognize just how untruthful people often are -and this sometimes includes ourselves. . Part of the "project" of Radical Centrism is inspiring courage to face the truth, whatever that truth may be. This is a philosophical principle with major implications. Yes, arriving at a center is a virtue, but not at the expense of compromising away one's fundamental values. It is essential in Radical Centrism to accept the truths in any position you are evaluating for what they are. . Left and Right ideologies are "packages" of positions that serve a theory-derived purpose -the emancipation of the working class, the defense of property rights, the necessity for free speech, among them. This does not say that their purposes are wrong just that as organizing principles they are insufficient. They are reductionist, they try to reduce all issues to one issue, and that isn't how the world works. Radical Centrism is a form of "systems thinking," taking into account all relevant facts and ideas and truths. . As difficult as it is for some people to understand how this functions in the realm of politics, it is harder in the sphere of religion. . In effect, the idea being discussed here is much like a concept sometimes called "cafeteria Catholicism." There are Protestant versions of the same thing, Jewish versions, Buddhist versions, and so forth. Hinduism can almost be thought of as one vast cafeteria. The believer picks and chooses from the alternatives, arriving at a collection of ideas that satisfy his or her individual needs and desires. However, things are not so simple. . The reason is that there is a truth test involved in Radical Centrist thought that may or may not be present in other outlooks. It isn't enough to choose something, what is chosen needs to stand the test of rightness and truthfulness. Is it really in your best interests? Are you exchanging one fiction, one mythology, for another, or are you choosing truth? . This is anything but a screed in favor of Atheism. Metaphysics without God can be every bit as wrong as a metaphysics of God, or of many Gods. Besides, Atheism, in most forms, is two dimensional, flat, not cognizant of the depths of religion and the many functions of faith in the real world and throughout the real worlds of our evolutionary past. . Atheism is not only "soulless" in a formal sense but also soulless in a metaphorical sense, meaning unimaginative, cold rather than warm, superficial rather than psychological, and blandly ideological rather than painfully realistic. So it seems to me. . Yet this leaves plenty of room for criticism of religion. The principle of choice in matters of faith presupposes criticisms of views that you do not accept -otherwise why would you have rejected those alternatives? But it does say that there are innumerable truths to find within religious experiences of all kinds. However, the objective is truth, not comforting fictions: The truth and nothing but the truth -unless we are talking about drama or literature -or story-telling that features engaging myths. . There is also a methodology. Masking good decisions about religious questions requires more than prayerful contemplation. There may well be value in prayer, of course. This has been recognized from time immemorial. Mesopotamian sacred texts include many prayers and supplications, prayers and thanksgivings, prayers and reflections on the meaning of life and fate. There is something similar in many Pagan prayers of ancient Greece, it wasn't only Christians or Jews who prayed. Its just that prayers offer no guarantee of response to questions; besides, as the Apostle Paul said in various contexts, believers can and should avail themselves of the light of reason. Praying does not excuse anyone from the responsibility of problem-solving thinking. . . In case anyone has the interest I can tell you my own methodology -which seems to work reasonably well, with the disclaimer, anyway, that I am responsible for my own mistakes. . It starts with dedication to discovering unadorned truth as my highest intellectual value. If I have a mission in life it necessarily comes with the imperative to speak the truth, to expose falsehood and error, which, of course, is something that presupposes knowing truth. This is derivative of the example of Socrates and Diotima, the priestess who was his mentor, who showed him how to proceed to find the truth. . Not sure if this can be explained further, but at about age 17, not long before I headed off to college, I had read about Socrates and was forever impressed by his example; he had made the value of seeking the truth absolutely clear. . This came with a methodology of his own, albeit filtered through Plato, which I was dubious about, but the worth of truth was undeniable. And it reinforced the message in sermons I had heard in Baptist church in previous years, the pastor citing the Apostle Paul saying, for instance: "Throw off falsehood, speak the truth to one another," and "let no-one deceive you with shallow arguments," and "look facts in the face," and "stop lying to one another." . But how are you supposed to do that? It took a good deal of trial and error but essentially what made the best sense to me was to combine the insights of several philosophers and religious thinkers: Martin Luther, whom I bad discovered in high school, St. Thomas Aquinas, Des Cartes, Henri Saint-Simon, Kant, and Hegel. And the American pragmatists. To the list must be added Sigmund Freud, the first modern-era thinker that I know of who made use of myths as paradigms for solving psychological problems. The one contribution from the Orient was not one particular thinker but a school of thought, Zen Buddhism. What Zen teaches that is invaluable to know, is that obvious solutions to problems are often wrong and ultimately waste your time. To find compelling answers that can stand any test it is vital to look for the unexpected, to be prepared to find surprises, to examine every serious problem from every conceivable angle, and not to be satisfied until you find the simplest, most elegant solution possible. This kind of idea is also known in a less complicated form in the philosophy of William of Ockham. . >From Luther comes the idea that unless a problem really matters to you, viscerally, it probably isn't worth the effort. When it does matter to you give it all you've got. Do your very best. When you do approach a problem what is necessary is -to use modern idiom- to turn on your "crap detector" and look for any and all nonsense embedded in a point of view you are examining. It is crucial to dispose of any and all superfluous or wrong ideas. In most cases such nonsense is there to be found. Look for it, its probably under your nose, and such "crap" must be eliminated. Which, not at all incidentally, was a view taught by Edward F. Carpenter, the founding headmaster of "Harlem Prep," aka, Harlem Preparatory School -who invented the phrase "crap detector." . Aquinas was a towering intellect who devised a system of systematic correction of errors as essential to learning and defending truth. It isn't always necessary but it sometimes is, and in all such cases Aquinas set the example of what to do. Start by informing yourself of what your opposition is saying -conscientiously. Study the views of the "other side," know them as well as you know your own views. Then refute them decisively so that you have cleared the decks and the truth is there to be seen in contrast to every mistaken view. In other words, you need to have a fighting spirit, you need to utterly annihilate your opposition so that their views can clearly be seen as based on error. . Des Cartes taught the value of systematic doubt. Question everything, do not make assumptions about anything at all. Never start by defending views insisted upon by a religion or ideology or school of thought. Doubt it all and see where it takes you. No sacred cows allowed, no dogmas, and no words attributed to God. Use your intellect, be ruthless on your quest for truth, be thorough. Then, when you simply cannot doubt anything else, see what you have and build upon whatever solid truths are available to you. . Henri Saint-Simon was a philosophe -moreso a popularizer of ideas than a philosopher as such- whose one contribution to the subject of truth seeking was extremely important: He recognized the fact that a combination of the methods of science with the task of discovering the truths of human existence should be entirely possible and, at the same time, reveal vital facts about our nature to us. Hence, and his reputation for this is well deserved, he is regarded as the father of sociology and the social sciences more generally. That is, it is not enough to deduce conclusions from established bodies of knowledge nor is it enough to use scientific method to delve into the secrets of the natural world. The methods of science should be applied to seeking truth about human beings as uncovered trough careful observation, controlled experiment, and study of empirical facts. That is, it is essential to approach almost every problem you want to solve the way a physicist approaches the study of atoms or energy: Accumulate facts, maybe find out new facts through your own investigations, formulate an hypothesis that explains a phenomenon, test your theory trying to find its weaknesses, and don't imagine you have discovered an actual truth unless you have done everything necessary to be as certain as it is possible to get. This sets the bar quite high and most of the time this is more than anyone can accomplish, but at a minimum this model of finding truth should guide your work. . Kant, in effect, is the father of Radical Centrism. What is absolutely crucial to his system of thought is the problem of the "antinomies of reason." This will take a few paragraphs to explain but it is worth the time to think through his thesis about the functions of reason. What follows is not, however, an analysis of metaphysics, Kant's original subject, but how his logic can produce valuable conclusions when applied to problems encountered in politics and religion. This is an interpretation of Kant but, you may agree, a useful interpretation. . What Kant noticed is the fact that we are regularly confronted with contrary claims about reality. This presents us with the problem of reason itself, our need to resolve contrary (or seemingly contradictory) assertions: We have free will vs. there is no such thing as free will. The Holy Spirit is female as characterized in the Hebrew Bible vs. the Holy Spirit is male, as described in the New Testament. Jesus was human but divine vs. Jesus was entirely human. Or, to go outside the realm of Biblical faith, into Taoism, truth manifests in the world of nature which we need to live in harmony with vs. truth is found by locating voids in nature, spaces that open our understanding to the realm of the sacred, something not possible through our usual perceptions the world around us. . How can we resolve these kinds of important questions? Each contrary view is powerful and persuasive. . The answer is that there would not be such contraries if our reason was not subject to limitations and prone to accepting illusions as objective facts when, of course, illusions are fictions. "True contraries," in other words, are due to inescapable distortions of reason. We are human beings, by definition we are flawed, imperfect, and subject to errors of judgement. It is in this realization that a solution to the problem of contraries can be found. . Maybe it isn't always the case, but one reason for the existence of contraries is the fact that each "talks past" the other. They aren't really in the same ballpark; each operates on the basis of a different set of assumptions. The task, therefore, is to unmask these assumptions and examine what each is really all about. Each is as strong as it is because each is founded on actual truths. To discover what is essential in antinomies it is necessary to change one's perspective, to rethink one's premises; only then can the solution emerge. . Here is an antinomy that matters greatly to millions of people: . The Bible is wholly consistent, there are no errors in its pages, it is authoritative for all things of concern to a spiritual life. vs. The Bible is inconsistent, there are errors of many kinds in its pages, it is not authoritative for much of anything. . . But what if the Bible is authoritative despite being imperfect? What if there are both consistencies and inconsistencies? What if there are both profound truths and a good number of errors? In this case each antinomy is untenable. Paradoxically, both are true and false. . There is also a consideration that neither Jews nor Christians wish to think about. You can argue a case that, speaking of the Tanakh, the Old Testament, there really are two Bibles in one. This refers to a set of "books" of the Bible that are consistent with a henotheistic interpretation -a God and Goddess interpretation. This refers to the following texts: Judges, Ruth, parts of Proverbs, notably chapters 8 and 9, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, and Jonah. There also are passages in Genesis and other books that show evidence of an original composition far older than the monotheistic version we now have, which also are compatible with henotheistic views, Numbers 31 and Malachi 1: 11, for instance. This takes any debate to an entirely new level and raises many questions that radically challenge monotheistic views. About consistency and inconsistency, the observation can be made that there are examples of each in the Bible, in both testaments. Where there is undoubted consistency why shouldn't we make it clear that the book is authoritative to us? There are historical inconsistencies between Judges and Joshua, for instance. In that case the court of appeal should be the historical and archaeological record. Sometimes we can eliminate inconsistencies by affirming the truth of some passages and discrediting other verses that simply cannot pass empirical tests of fact. . Where there is complete consistency, for example, is with respect to the Bible's views of sodomy, both male and female. There are at least 30 passages on the issue in the Holy Book and they all condemn same sex sexuality in all of its forms; attempts by ersatz 'liberal' Christians to explain away these condemnations have proven to be based on fallacies or on outright falsifications of obvious meanings. This leaves us with, for good reason, complete rejection of homosexuality; this repudiation is necessary to both Jewish and Christian believers. You are free to disagree -but not as a Christian or a Jew. No 'debate' is thinkable. Nothing could be clearer. . These kinds of explanations will not satisfy either so-called "fundamentalists" or modernists but they do not need to do so. All that is necessary is that alternative explanations speak to the intellectual and "whole person" needs of some number men and women. In the future there may be many more than there are today. What is essential is establishing a truth -so that it may grow in the awareness of people. In effect, Radical Centrism is about winning the war to establish truth -against lies and deceptions and illusions. To borrow an adage attributed to Margaret Thatcher, "first win the argument, then win the election." This becomes: . First win the argument about the truth and then win converts to a new Cause. What is demonstrably true will prevail even if it takes more time than it should. Never underestimate the power of entrenched interests. But always put truth first because it is the right thing to do. . Hegel is also important to Radical Centrists because he made it clear that truth may arise from competition -or conflict- between opposite positions. In fact, there are many examples of this phenomenon. A position is advanced that affirms a positive principle; this is called the Thesis. In due course as the Thesis plays out in the real world, problems with it arise since nothing is perfect in this life and a negative view arises in opposition; this is called the Antithesis. Finally, there is a clash between Thesis and Antithesis; the result is a new position that combines the truths in both the Thesis and Antithesis, discarding everything extraneous or incorrect. This is known as the Synthesis. Eventually the Synthesis serves as a new Thesis and the process repeats itself. Whether or not this is exactly how all tensions between ideas work out in life isn't critical, what is important is that something similar to this process takes place and is a guide to how Radical Centrists think about problems. An example of this Hegelian dialectic in operation might be the process whereby the excesses of the Catholic Church in the early 1500s led to Luther's criticisms and creation of a new and simpler form of Christian faith. When Henry VIII decided to break from Rome, however, he did not adopt the Lutheran model, he believed that a superior solution would be to retain many of the liturgical and organizational features of Catholicism but borrow Lutheran theology and basic values. You might also think of Lutheranism as a Thesis among Protestants that generated Calvinism as its Antithesis, only to be followed later by a Synthesis that we know today as the Baptist Church. . The American pragmatists are also important to Radical Centrists. Here the test of truth is practicality: Does it work? Is an idea you think is true also useful? Something that is true may not have much value if there is no practical result. Practicality thus sets the agenda for philosophy : The search is not just for true conclusions but for meaningful truths that can have an impact in the real world -as opposed to, for example, most questions of metaphysics or most formulations in logical positivism. Truths should "pay off" -in education, in politics, in the realm of culture, and in making decisions about right and wrong in matters of religious faith on which you base your life. Additionally, allow me to mention a factor that adds further depth to everything else, an important lesson from my years as a Baha'i. This concerns the Baha'i view that spiritual truth is not limited to any single faith. I eventually rejected Baha'i theology which said that all religions are 'equal' in value, an outlook that fails empirical tests since by objective measures they simply are not equal, but the concept that many religions have value passes those tests with flying colors. Hence my practice to always, in questions of religion, make sure to take into account any relevant information about other religions besides my own when thinking about spiritual questions. Christianity is unique in aggregate but not in many or most of its particulars. There are parallels to Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and ancient faiths of the Mid East concerning most issues of importance. And, if you are studying Buddhism you should never overlook its connections to Hinduism, Taoism, and Confucianism -and Shinto only exists in Japan in association with the Dharma. Judaism has numerous connections with other religions depending on which period of history you are concerned with, since it had relationships with Zoroastrianism in the Exilic era, with Greco-Roman Paganism in the Hellenistic era, with Byzantine Christianity after that, and so forth. Whatever the issue -the concept of salvation, baptism, morality, et. al.- it is a really good idea to compare what you are investigating with examples from other faiths. You can be sure that you will find fresh insights Finally there is the subject of sociobiology. This obviously is not a type of philosophy, it is a science, the newest science in fact. The animating principle of sociobiology is that human beings are products of evolution and carry with us vestiges of our primate past -or even mammalian past more generally. We are creatures who for whom adaptation is central to everything else. As individuals we adapt to the changing circumstances of our lives, as groups we adapt to new social realities, and as a species we are the product of numerous adaptations of the past. No matter how you look at ourselves we are biological beings whatever else we may also be. We do not exist outside of biology. This does not exclude other possibilities -think of Arthur Clarke's science fiction scenarios whereby we can continue to live after death as organized electrons, not only religious scenarios where we live after death in a spiritual realm- but what is undisputed is that we must focus attention on flesh-and-blood realities. As things are, our biological natures are congruent with the natures of other species, especially other primates, which is to say that we should not for a moment think that we have left our animal natures in the dust. We remain animals. Or as Christians put it, we are born in "original sin." This translates into the fact that we sometimes are selfish creatures, again and again we do stupid things, our passions often get the better of us, it is a struggle to lead moral lives, and on and on. None of us are remotely perfect; we are collections of imperfections. . All of which simply says that any conclusions we reach must be consistent with the fact of our animal natures, with our innate sinfulness. Idealization of human-ness does nobody the least good because that point-of-view is unrealistic. Not because we are born "evil" but because we are born with limitations and imperfections that sometimes cause harm to our self interests as well as the interests of others. . Radical Centrism, then, is far more than the view that the best policy in politics or in other areas of life is likely to be found in the center, or in some form of moderation. Radical Centrists generally agree with "centrists" about objectives but we approach problems in a very different manner. This is because Radical Centrism is a philosophy with its own way of thinking that ventures far beyond making things up as you go, beyond applied common sense, and beyond spontaneous responses to issues. Radical Centrism is a system of thought that makes demands on people. It asks people to never stop learning, to educate themselves to new ways of problem solving, and it tells them that we can do far better than conventional ways of doing things. . Radical Centrism, to put it in such terms, is a graduate school for the mind. . Not that all of the methods I may use are possible to use in all cases; and sometimes some methods are inappropriate to particular problems. . The best way to think about Radical Centrist methodology is to conceive it as tools in a toolkit. Not every task requires a screwdriver or a micrometer or an adjustable wrench. But you are far better off if you have a variety of tools to choose from when confronted with most problems in life, including issues of religion. Moreover you have the freedom to add tools to your toolbox that are not mentioned here or anywhere else. You can invent new tools or think of new uses for existing tools. All that is asked is that your ideas are consistent with ideas expressed here, not in every detail since we are individuals and have individual needs, but in spirit. . Is the system just outlined the only possible Radical Centrist point-of-view about religion? Of course not. However, this is a challenge to anyone who disagrees with that system or with particular parts of it. Someone can say, "well, I don't accept those views" or "I have better ideas," but if you do have objections or better ideas, what are they? . Radical Centrism is still a new philosophy, people who are part of RC are still exploring the possibilities, still working toward some kind of comprehensive outlook that can become generally popular. Here is my interpretation of what this outlook can be and should be. It is the product of years of careful thought on the questions discussed. If you believe your approach is superior it is up to you to tell everyone else your interpretation. Otherwise, my view could become associated with Radical Centrism in the public mind, unopposed. . I would prefer at least some discussion and debate and would welcome give-and-take. Have I thought of everything important? What have I overlooked? What opportunities are not identified? Are there errors of fact or logic? In short, I regard informed dissent as a blessing, not as a liability. All that I ask is that people who don't really know what they are talking about not waste everyone's time with half baked objections or irrelevant opinions. The "price of admission" to a serious debate is study, making yourself informed, taking the time to think through the important questions about religion in human life. . . In the realm of religion we really need other terminology besides "Radical Centrism." The problem with this phrase is that it is closely associated with politics and secular concerns more generally. We do not have agreed-upon nomenclature for the purposes of religion but as a suggestion 'spiritual Radical Centrism' might be called "crossroads theology." This is taken from the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible, from the Book of Proverbs, especially chapter 8, which begins: "Hear how Wisdom lifts her voice and Understanding cries out. She stands at the crossroads, by the wayside at the top of the hill; beside the gate, at the entrance to the city, at the entry, by the open gate she calls aloud: Men [people] it is to you I call, I appeal to every man: Understand you simple fools, what it is to be shrewd. You stupid people, understand what sense means. Listen! For I will speak clearly, you will have plain speech from me, for I speak nothing but truth..." . . .
-- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
