Knowledge: Part 3
Whatever constitutes religious beliefs varies because people differ in their genetic and environmental makeup. People vary because their reasoning powers in terms of knowledge, priorities, and goals are disequalized. It seems there is no singular way to accomplish moral good---plus good is not a term which can be precisely defined. The amount of good generated is often impacted by one's environment. There is a difference between a good person and a good society. In either case the term is mired amuck in relativity, and always difficult to measure. Currently our government is less admired for any goodness, both domestically and abroad, than at any time in our history. Because there is no solitary reason for this fall from goodness, opinions vary widely as to why we have fallen. Unless all the polls are errant, there is no reasonable reason for disputing this dissatisfaction with the 'goodness' of our current policies across the globe.
Again I turn to Lincoln. According to Lincoln good government "is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men---to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life." It is no hap-pence for the word "all" to appear 3 times in this short statement. Nowhere in this statement, or in any other statements from Lincoln, can be found any assertion there would be more goodness in society if a particular religious group, ethnic group, cultural group, economic group, gender group, etc were to set government policies and laws. It also seems clear the only legitimate reason for accepting Lincoln's concept of government is if this concept elevates the welfare of society as a whole. History dictates any form of government which fails to maintain the welfare of all its' citizens will collapse as a consequence. The have-nots will always win. As a nation we seem to have currently lost, or to have at least ignored, this lesson of history. We have a vastly superior military power to back up our our demands (right or wrong demands)---yet it has become an embarrassing illusion that our might makes us right. In fact we are losing battles on every front---albeit the human carnage is impressive. In the killing game we are King. We lost in Vietnam, we are losing in Iraq, we are losing in Afghanistan, we are losing in the battle against poverty at home or abroad, health care at home or abroad, less exploitation of the environment at home or abroad, protecting the land, water, and atmosphere from pollution, controlling overpopulation, preventing death from preventable diseases across the globe, etc. Despite all this defeat on virtually every front, the expenditures on military adventures and equipment remain a priority which dwarfs any other priority. When one looks at where our government is, compared to the definition about good government supplied by Lincoln, the two are stark contrasts.
Still, it could be argued, religious beliefs have nothing to do with politics or government, that religious beliefs are strictly personal and independent of politics. Perhaps on paper, but in practice this seems unreasonable. The kind of religious beliefs upon which we actually act, are not formed in a vacuum. A child raised amidst adequate diverse adult support, emotionally and financially, is likely to see being kind and responsible to others as a virtue, a reasonable religious belief. A child raised locked behind barred doors and windows in an urban drug war zone is likely to see virtue in taking for himself/herself, by any means, those material needs for survival. Such a child is more likely to see kindness as weakness and ill fitted for his sense of anger at the world. A child raised in a tightly controlled small 'family values' environment is more likely to view others outside immediate family as irrelevant to much of anything, and at best nuisances to be avoided. Any 'I am my brother's keeper' is outside the circled wagons, an anathema to their 'family values'. Thus, absent any real community interaction, and/or social life outside immediate family, the perceptual nature of any reasoning process to form personal religious values is altered. When self reasoning is not the basis for one's religious beliefs, then one is most likely to simply pay lip service to some inherited religious dogma, at most attend some church services, and have one's religious beliefs play little role in the immediate priorities and focus of daily life. Some, for whatever reason, seek meaning to their life, or some sort of salvation in their future life, by grabbing hold of inherited religious dogma of this or that sort and then going after those 'heathens' possessing different inherited or reasoned religious beliefs, or who display indifference to the dogmas in question; then these 'dogmatists' either literally attack the disbelievers or become obsessed with making their inherited religious beliefs the law of the land. This seem familiar anyone? I am by my nature anti-dogma. If dogmatism, the absence of reason to reach conclusions, is wrong in every other area of human endeavors, then how can it be claimed right as the basis for religious beliefs?
There is some logic to a stance others really are irrelevant, that the only responsibility anyone has is to protect their own interests, their own needs, their own happiness etc,----some sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest. But I would argue there is little evidence this sort of Darwinian mentality brings any remarkable happiness. Drug lords, crime mafia types, corporate money or power driven CEO's, recipients of inherited wealth, cocooned families etc. never appear to be particularly happy campers---even though they certainly, if anyone does, lead lives of intense self interest for self gain or survival. If anyone is looking for a genuinely fun time, avoid these kind of people---like the song "I don't want your many mansions with the chill in every room.......". If such self interest indeed does not bring happiness, then reason dictates this to be a bad choice to be part of any religious portfolio.
Using reason to formulate religious beliefs is not the most difficult task. Human nature is hard wired to a basic universality of right and wrong, absent the medical condition of being a psychopath. Virtually everyone knows it is 'wrong' to steal. As Lincoln reflected: "This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." One could use this kind of reasoning to formulate many religious beliefs. For example: he who would not have his own possessions stolen, must consent not to steal from others. Those who deny others the right to steal, have no right to steal themselves, and under a just God, will be judged accordingly. Many of the more frivolous, albeit highly emotional, issues of the day can be resolved via this Lincolnian line of reasoning. This is a world of compensations; and he who would reserve the right to choose who they marry, must consent to allow others the same right to choose who they marry. But, one might argue, there are sexual 'norms' involved here. Really? What is too far from the norm?----Foot fetishes?
Oral sex?, S +M?, role playing? virtual abstinence?, sex daily?, using birth control?, not using birth control?, group sex?, heterosexual anal sex? homosexual anal sex? etc. Again Lincoln reflected, "In those matters which involve no one else individuals should have the freedom to do as they please." This in no way stops anyone from having any opinion or feelings about any of the above behaviors. Perhaps two more examples: This is a world of compensations; and he who would be free to dress as he chooses must consent not to impose dress codes on others. Those who deny freedom for others to dress as they please do not deserve such freedom for themselves. This is a world of compensations; and he who would value access to adequate health care for themselves or their kids must consent to valuing adequate health care for others or their kids. Those who deny others access do not deserve such access to good health care themselves. The basic point here is that reason should be the basis of religious beliefs---not feelings or inherited ancient dogmas. Religious beliefs generated by vigorous self reasoning will more likely carry with them the strength to adhere and follow such beliefs.
If I kind of lurch through this musing it cannot, given the complexities of it in my mind, be avoided. Aside from religious beliefs about behaviors, there is the question of divine intervention in our daily lives. The theologian Charles Hodge summarized the belief of many that "An infinitely wise, good, and powerful God is everywhere present, controlling all events great and small, necessary, and free, in a way perfectly consistent with the nature of his creatures and his own infinite excellence." This, on the face of it, seems unreasonable. There are many events in life which are clearly not fair, humane, wise, etc.. To attribute all these things to a God who is all wise, good, and powerful---controlling all events, is just a bit much. It is patently ludicrous. If, on the other hand, God works his wonders of the world through His created process of evolution, then all these 'bad events' can happen as part of a process which, over eons of time, is a wise and good process. We need not, in our search for religious meaning, miss the forest for the sake of the trees.
Lincoln, as I see it, used reason to formulate his religious beliefs. He used biblical scripture as part of his reasoning base. But it should be noted that on the major issues of his day---like slavery, Lincoln debated the issue, not by quibbling over the meaning of isolated directives in scripture---as did many of his day on both sides----but by using logic to formulate his religious belief slavery was wrong. Given the major tenets of Jesus' preaching, it seems strange the issue was ever in question. To 'know' Jesus is to be against injustice to anyone, let alone support any system of slavery. That of course, is exactly why blind adherence to isolated outdated HUMAN writings on religion is folly, and to follow blindly scriptural notations such as the earth is flat, or any such other absurdly outdated notions, is hardly something to be too smug about. Religion doesn't collapse because it grows instead of being some sort of static entity. As President, Lincoln was bombarded with differing religious pressures to do what God wanted done. Lincoln never really claimed God was on the side of the North, but rather pondered over, in his words, "In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time". After one such contentious meeting with differing religious viewpoints, Lincoln responded, "I shall be most happy indeed if I shalt be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty". He then concluded the meeting with this: "And if I can learn what it is I will do it." "if I can LEARN....". Learn, to Lincoln, was always a process of seeking sound logic and reasoning to resolve moral issues. Lincoln was not about to make moral decisions based on isolated purported religious dictated dogma from any source, especially when comparably robed and titled religious authorities had discordant dogmatic views, with of course God on each side.
Still to be answered is the question of whether God ever intervenes in the evolutionary process. This is a question which reverberates in my mind a lot, and has so for some time. I certainly no longer spend time praying for good health, financial gain, to be brighter, etc.----or even praying for others to recover from disease or survive financial problems, etc. And if I were the world's best football player, or the world's worst football player, I would not get in a circle, clasp hands, and ask for God's help to win the game. I think the evidence is clear---God is not normally involved in this kind of interference for anyone. If the Pope has pancreatic cancer the Pope is going to die and all the prayers of all his followers will not save the Pope. The created evolutionary process moves steadily on, according to divine mathematical laws; only Time stays---WE GO, the dumb and bright alike, those too of all religious persuasions. No exceptions. I suppose it can't hurt for me to file for an exemption.
