Knowledge: Part 4
Lincoln would do poorly in the political world of today. I say this because Lincoln was a deliberate thinker, cautious to arrive at conclusions. Since studied logic formed the basis of his conclusions there is no way he could answer questions on major issues in a 30 sec or one minute time frame. His debates, when running for Senator, consisted of each candidate given an hour to address any issues of their choosing, then a half hour rebuttal; then a break, then do the same thing all over again. When Lincoln did debate he spoke slowly so the audience could digest the logic behind his arguments. After being nominated for President, Lincoln, which was the custom of the time, made no speeches. It was accepted back then that the previous speeches of the candidate were sufficient information for the pubic to pass judgment. Lincoln today would bristle at the notion he should seriously respond to all kinds of questions immediately, off the top of his head, like in some sort of game show with the clock ticking. Lincoln liked to think over important matters for days or weeks and would not be hurried. He would make little notes as thoughts came to him, store them up inside his hat, and then when he finished his research, which included input from those with varied opinions on the subject, he would write out his conclusions---often making several drafts. One can count Lincoln's major addresses on one hand; in 4 years of office he made fewer than 100 speeches, all written by himself. He had no speech writers. Is it really any wonder, with today's changed mode of Presidential operation, we generate over night so many half cocked policies that blow up in our face for any lack of deliberated logic regarding consequences?
But here I want to return again to using reason as the basis for religious beliefs.
I suppose the objection to this entails the notion such a basis is silly, that only God can give to us legitimate religious beliefs, that undertaking such a task through reason, as individuals, is an absurdity given our limited comprehension of these matters. We may be a lot of things, but we can't play God on morality.
Well, it would not be my inclination to play God or contest His vast superiority of knowledge. I prefer to play the fool in other aspects of my life, not on this issue.
But in the absence of God clearly communicating directly to all humans, I think it is reasonable to question the dictates of some human robed and titled religious leaders, whose dictates are directed to limited segments of humanity. If anyone is playing God here it is these religious leaders. It is not just on ethics or morals where God remains silent to us, but on all other areas of knowledge as well. Advances have been made in health matters, economics, science, math, etc, by using reason to further understanding in these areas. Perhaps the burden of proof is on the other shoe. Why, in the area of religion should we seek advancement or understanding of religion absent reasoning? In the past these robed and titled religious leaders were the last word on disease, science, and other areas with disastrous results. We called this governance by ignorance the Dark Ages. As far as I am concerned, in many respects, religion is still in the Dark Ages. What is the logical basis for rejecting reason as the basis for ethics and morality, or if you prefer, religion? For some, to use reason and logic as the basis for morality and ethics is to turn away from 'prophets' of the past. That is nonsense. It would be like saying to accept modern scientific principles one must reject the earlier pioneers of science as frauds. They are not frauds but heroes for progress. No matter what area considered, when the dominant knowledge claims of society are religious in nature, progress has been difficult. Once reason is allowed to drive religion, progress in this area will accelerate. How many people have been killed, tortured, and deprived of rights throughout history because of religious beliefs devoid of any logical basis. The historical list of religious abuses is long---including treating diseases like leprosy and epilepsy as punishment from God, burning witches, slavery as divine will, women as submissive to men, human and animal sacrifices to God, etc. Even today there are a whole litany of issues driven by mindless adherence to antiquated religious dogma---birth control; personal control over dying; homosexuality; population control; praying as a means to win games, job promotions, ending wars, solving poverty or disease; family values (as implemented by the religious right); recreational drug use as a criminal activity; and the list goes on.
A friend advised me, based on Part 3 of this musing, that health care is not a right, that having a home is not a right, that having a job is not a right---that these sort of things have nothing to do with liberty and justice for all. These, it was explained, are things people earn and are in fact part of anyone's responsibility to be a contributing member of society at large. I think they are saying, after all, people cannot expect to just exist and have all the necessities and comforts of life delivered to them. At a certain level I would agree this is true. According to Aristotle, to understand is to know what x is for. Let x in this case be government. It might be useful here to return once again to Lincoln's definition of good government: 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." I suppose, if life for all was on a level playing field, government would need only to exist to enforce fair rules of the game. But any reasonable examination of human lives reveals there is no level playing field: abilities differ, opportunities differ, environmental situations differ, etc. Yet for any society to remain healthy and be sustained for any real length of time, as Lincoln states, government must clear paths for the 'laudable pursuit of all'. Earlier it was stated religious values are not formed in a vacuum. Humans, left mired in unsuitable conditions, for example our drug war ravaged rural and urban ghettoes, often are incapable of accepting religious virtues that in other environmental situations would be considered commendable. Thus if the goal is a healthy and consequently more virtuous society, all must be given a chance to improve their lot in life. There is a difference between providing a fair chance and handing someone something for nothing. Good health care for a child may not be a right, but it is a necessity for the child to have an opportunity to compete successfully, to better himself/herself and become a contributing member of society. A job may not be a right, but good government realizes the consequences of any widespread unemployment. It is, after all, the responsibility of good government to eliminate economic ghettoes, not create them. In these drug war created ghettoes, where unemployment is often well over 50%, the jobless don't need welfare checks, they need jobs. The young kids need living wage jobs, not to be thrown in jail for 10 years for selling others marijuana. I know, they sell other drugs too. But take marijuana out of the mix, legalize it, and how lucrative would the remaining business be? Not very.
