2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I think it's very important to be clear about something we are hearing a lot from the more liberal Christian community (and some other liberal versions of religions that have more fundamentalist literalist versions- in particular, the monotheistic ones). Karen Armstrong, for example, represents this position and it is catching on like wildfire, as we heard from some of the speakers in this episode. The idea is not just that truth and facts are not the same thing (and by some usage of the word "truth," that is true), but that because something is *psychologically true* (or beneficial) it gets special permission to be reified ontologically. Theists are not content to keep religion in the realm of myth and literature, even though Shakespeare, Homer, Joyce, etc, are rich testaments to the history of humanity and tell us so much- maybe what is most important, about ourselves. There is this implicit assertion that we must take it to another level and actually reify these beliefs or the effects are diluted. That's probably true psychologically actually, but it doesn't justify it ontologically. For that assessment we go by facts and evidence. Besides, there has to be at least some facts involved or there would be no actual religion to speak of that isn't purely psychological (maybe that's the point).

This is one place where we have to resist the human urge to constantly up the ante. We have to be very clear about what this action is exactly, if each person's subjective truth is to be considered as true as objective reality. The word that we have for this action is called delusion. We all do it to some extent. It may be beneficial and/or comforting on different levels personally and socially, but it is still delusion. We may even admittedly decide it's worth it to say it's ontologically true because it is psychologically true, knowing full well that it isn't ontologically true, because the benefits outweigh the truth. Even Nietzsche eventually saw some necessary benefit in employing the world of appearances (and evolutionary psychology will explore that more in the future). Still... I think that the greatest personal challenge is realizing that we can have all of that psychological truth, all of the community and compassion, all of that natural awe- plus the facts, without reifying religion, because it is superfluous.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I have very mixed emotions about whether or not govt. should ask religious groups to help, because as we just saw in Washington, D.C.; "The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday [Nov. 11, 2009] that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care" from Catholic Church gives D.C. Ultimatum  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html

These are exactly the kinds of hostage situations we can expect with faith based funding that we don't get from secular welfare programs.  When conservatives call for smaller govt. (and less welfare programs), but more faith based initiatives, this is what will continue to happen more and more. Religious charity is great on its own dime and they should be able to do what they want on their dime... but not on mine.  Secular welfare does not discriminate and that makes it BETTER. I encourage everyone to seek out non-religious, non-partisan charities, like Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, The Humane Society, or S.H.A.R.E. (Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort).

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” (Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Richard Price, 10/9/1790)

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context