Hi Billy, Impressive. Did you intend this as your first column for Mile's forum?
E Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 9, 2016, at 23:43, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical > Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The Crossroads of Faith and 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. -- -- 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.
