Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:28:00
Patriot’s Journey 2007 - Secularism and faith
In the previous post, I ask people to ask any question they like of me. Christian, speaking as an agnostic that believes in a higher power, asked “How does a person balance secularism with faith?”
It took me many years to figure out what to do with that part of myself that wants to believe in something. It must be hard-wired in our genetic code, because with rare Unabomer-ish exception, people have always wanted to connect and co-exist in groups and be part of something. I’ve always believed, since I was young, that religion wasn’t the opiate of the masses, but rather that most religions were guidelines for civilization. Remove all the hate, war, instructions on how to eat or when to beat your slave from any of the holy texts (all added at various times by guys putting their stamp on what came before them) and what you are left with are some pretty good rules. Show respect. Be nice. Love your family. Protect your neighbors. Share. Don’t take any wooden nickels. Basic, simple rules. They all have a list of basic rules, not including the crazy stuff like cutting off the head of non-believers and not sleeping in the same house with a menstruating woman (gee, could that rule have possibly been thought up by a man?).
I’m getting away from the point. The way I see it, if you respect those who are keeping peace with you, treat people with kindness, have love in your life and limit the damage you do to others, you’re doing very, very well. If you are truly sorry when you do make mistakes, and we all do, then you’re on the right track. That’s my belief system - humanity’s own worth, right here on this planet, in this realm, on this plane of existence. It’s my opinion that any sentience that could possibly care about the rules by which we live can only be interested in the universal ones...not insane dietary restrictions, worrying about who uses a condom or who says “Jesus Christ” as a swear word.
Be good to each other. If there’s someone watching, they’ll know you were good. Like Santa. :) If no one is watching, you still helped make the world a little bit nicer.
Religion doesn’t even have to enter into it if you don’t want it to. Life is choices, and these United States are a place where you can choose to handle snakes, face Mecca, rub burned palms on your face, rub beads, chant and dance, you can worship in virtually unlimited ways. We even put up with Scientologists. Barely. :)
Ultimately, I think the secular world should be guided by belief, but not governed by it. I don’t mind anyone using their belief system to reach decisions, what I despise is forcing that system’s individual rules onto others and calling it the will of $diety_name_here. I know freedom of religion does not equal freedom from religion. What I mean is codifying a specific religious rule into law, for example what if the government outlawed all pork products? First of all, Emeril Lagasse would simply drop dead. Secondly, would that be in any way fair to those of us that don’t follow one of the “cloven hooves are baaaaad” religions? No. It wouldn’t. It would be stupid and outrageous on it’s face.
I think I’m off the point again. Did any of that make sense? It seems so much clearer in my head. Believe in your own ability to be a decent person, be sorry when you make mistakes, do right by your friends and family and try to leave the world a little better than it was when you found it. Wow, my entire life’s philosophy sounds like how you should behave at a KOA campground. :)
To sum up - this is a Patriot’s Journey post because we get to do this kind of exploring free from oppression. It’s hard-coded in the very documents that founded our country. Awesome.
Addendum: my brilliant wife just informed me that it’s even more simple. My life’s philosophy is “Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes!”
I try to live my life like Bill & Ted. That’s gotta be wrong. Should I call a priest or something? :)
Posted by JimK at 07:28 PM on June 03, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: Things To Ponder
Tags:
Technorati: religion humanity philosophy
Comments:
#2 Posted by supercore 
on 06/03 at 11:58 PM -
For some reason,this reminds me of a great line from the TV show Roseanne. Somebody askes John Goodman what religion his family is…
“We’re good people. Non-practicing of course.”
or something like that.
#3 Posted by chrisbg99 on 06/04 at 12:06 AM -
As an agnostic, I’m all for a secular government but unfortunately secular is becoming more and more to mean anti-Christian (and anti-Jew depending on the situation) in this and other countries I fear.
#4 Posted by zoomzoom on 06/04 at 01:02 PM -
Jim,
What’s interesting about what you wrote is that you’ve about 80% on the way to Christianity. Take away all the extraneous garbage that gets thrown in the mix due to the fact that we’re ALL faulty, broken people and you find the essence of Christianity is Love: Love for God and for one another. For Christ Himself said that God’s will can be summed up in these two commands: Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself.
You’ve got most of the equation right. The only factor you’re missing is the source of that natural law.
#5 Posted by Orpheus 
on 06/04 at 07:41 PM -
You’ve got most of the equation right. The only factor you’re missing is the source of that natural law.
What, evolutionary biology?
#6 Posted by zoomzoom on 06/05 at 11:55 PM -
Orpheus,
One major problem I see with that right off the bat is the fact that evolution selects AGAINST altruism. If the evolutionary theory were accurate, we shouldn’t have these feelings of love, empathy, sympathy, etc.
#7 Posted by JimK on 06/06 at 04:41 AM -
If the evolutionary theory were accurate, we shouldn’t have these feelings of love, empathy, sympathy, etc.
What? Civilization is based on those feelings, and civilization is what has allowed man to flourish, reproduce in ever increasing numbers and live longer and longer.
#8 Posted by Drumwaster on 06/06 at 09:04 PM -
One major problem I see with that right off the bat is the fact that evolution selects AGAINST altruism.
How so? (Not that our society would miss altruism if it were to be deselected over the eons, but still...)
You seem to be arguing that evolution is selecting for groups of beings living together (clearly demonstrable throughout the animal world), but against the easiest way to keep that family/civic unit together…
It cannot have been a coincidence that every single religion out there had noticed the phenomenon most generally defined as The Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “cast your bread upon the waters and it will be returned to you seven-fold").
The ancients knew that you cannot put energy into a system without getting it back out again later on, even if the connection between cause and effect is so separated in time and place as to be almost indistinguishable from the background noise.
Phrased that way, even the most generous of altruists can be seen to be selfish as well, but in a delayed fashion, willing to sacrifice assets now for a larger benefit later on.
And evolution would seem to be selecting for this.
I look forward to reading any explanation…
#9 Posted by Orpheus on 06/06 at 10:55 PM -
One major problem I see with that right off the bat is the fact that evolution selects AGAINST altruism.
It doesn’t, actually. Have a read of game theory as applied to evolution.
#10 Posted by zoomzoom on 06/07 at 07:21 PM -
Hmm, interesting responses. Perhaps a clarification of my position is in order. I think it’s certainly true that among a specific family unit, evolution would select in favor of traits that keep a family together (like love). However, when you zoom out from that small unit, wouldn’t altruistic tendencies be selected against? After all, societal units constantly competed for scarce resources, and it would make sense that selfish motivations would drive that competition. Those who would “love their neighbor,” in the primitive sense, would starve to death, while those who “screwed the other guy” would make off great, perpetuating their genes. Is there something wrong with this understanding?
There has to have been some point at which our ancestors realized the benefits of the golden rule, which I would deem the beginning of civilization, but doesn’t this require intelligence? Maybe there was a tipping point where man became intelligent enough to get over his primal urge to have it all for himself?
Hopefully these paragraphs clarify my position. I had an anthropology professor who discussed the dilemma of altruism and natural selection, and this is one of the bits of knowledge which for the basis for my position. I’m interested to see how I am wrong.
Orpheus: Game Theory is interesting to me as one with a political science background. I read a great post on it you should check out. I link at my blog (Link Here).
#11 Posted by zoomzoom on 06/07 at 07:23 PM -
Orpheus: I’d also like to see any good links on game theory and evolution. I can already forsee the argument, but wouldn’t mind an informed explanation.
#12 Posted by Buzzion on 06/07 at 07:31 PM -
Those who would “love their neighbor,” in the primitive sense, would starve to death, while those who “screwed the other guy” would make off great, perpetuating their genes. Is there something wrong with this understanding?
A pack of wolves are better hunters than the lone wolf.
The person who screwed the other guy now has enemies, who while obviously not as efficient as him, can now band together in opposition and also have someone watching their back to help them in case another predator tries to make them prey.
The farmer is great at raising crops but sucks at defending his land. The warrior is an excellent defender but every plant he touches dies. Grouping together in such a way allows both to thrive and each to pass on their genes. They benefit from the traits that make the other successful without actually having it.
#13 Posted by Christian on 06/08 at 12:16 AM -
There has to have been some point at which our ancestors realized the benefits of the golden rule, which I would deem the beginning of civilization, but doesn’t this require intelligence? Maybe there was a tipping point where man became intelligent enough to get over his primal urge to have it all for himself?
I don’t think it’s intelligence, as much as it it is experience. If you see that working with the group allows you to eat more than working alone, their really isn’t intelligence at work, but more animal instinct. Are wolves intelligence? Or any other pack animal? Or are they merely using survival instincts honed over generations?
#14 Posted by Orpheus on 06/08 at 02:04 AM -
The mistake you guys are all making is considering natural selection as acting on an organism. It doesn’t - it acts on gene frequencies. If you throw yourself under a train to save two totally unrelated people, the genes that you have in common still benefit from the situation. When you realise that, altruism comes out as a more stable scenario.
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
Jim,
Wow...totally.
It does just boil down to “Be Most excellent to each other”.
Every religion, if you strip all the useless crap off like you were pointing out, is just that. And I think thats why I have had such problems with religion in the past is because the most vocal believers of a religion get caught up in the details of how they are supposed to worship, instead of pondering why they should worship.
I do feel extremely blessed to live in a country where we can examine, we can question, and in the end, accept other paths to Truth. I also feel that if you are not doing that in your own life, if you are not testing these beliefs, asking these questions, then you are not truly looking for Truth, your just accepting Dogma.
Thanks for letting me play here today. Now back to boobies, I hope. :)