I am uneasy about the word 'truth' as it seems to lead to trouble. John said
truth is absolute. That is really a self-definition by a very assertive
little word, a word given weight especially, probably almost universally, by
its use by mothers.
There may be facts, there are probably, more truthfully [;-)], good
hypotheses and useful assumptions. Going beyond that is where science gets
itself into trouble and seeks the authority of religion. Religious truth is
assertion based on faith, not testable. the problem with some semitic
monotheistic religions (including fundamentalist Christianity) is that the
logic follows, for the believer, that if something is divine and inescapable
truth, it obliterates other possible views and for some people, that
produces an obligation to coerce universal acceptance of such 'truth'.
Salman Rushdie, in 'Satanic Verses' really upset some people when, after a
conversation between Mohammed and the Angel Gabriel up a tree in the desert,
M being given different advice from some earlier advice from G, M thanks G
and Gabriel replies: "Well, just remember that all you got from me was what
you wanted to hear in the first place." The opposite of belief is not
disbelief, Rushdie remarks, but doubt.
The problem in the current dialogue is that those who believe and those who
doubt follow quite different ways of addressing issues. Anita says:
"... most of us have also had the experience of neutral and open
mind whereupon we go about searching for an answer that is
satisfactory, and, at least at the outset, the outcome is uncertain.
After searching, questioning, and probing, we may all find different
answers to what seemed like the same question originally."
Having been brought up as a fundamentalist Christian I have to say Anita
that the 'most of us' glosses over the fact that a whole raft of people are
not among these 'most' and that there is a severe clash of minds.
Training as an anthropologist, and life spent on four continents, has made
it evident to me that it is a general characteristic of our species to
establish mystical explanations to achieve certainty, remove doubt and avoid
the search; these diverse religious beliefs have meaning in each society in
providing supernatural reinforcement for conformist behaviour. In our
diverse society we have diverse beliefs and sanctions for a diversity of
moral conformities. In our secular society, science too often seeks
religious status by demanding conformity among its proponents, earlier
hypotheses become taught as dogma and 'truth' becomes false, the word
'absolute' still applying to the demand for conformity. This is why in the
'most scientific' country on the planet you (I speak as a foreigner with
affection for the US) have the only advance state in which there is a real
battle between science and creationist dogma - because science has taken on
the mantle of dogma itself.
In broader political context - the higher sense of politics as a nation's
best ideals - one need only reflect upon the evolving nature of self-evident
truths such as the idea that all men are born equal, a stunning advance in
the 18th century, with its unperceived gender exclusion and assertion by
happy slave owners. Truth is not absolute, however self-evident.
I think I prefer to keep this little word truth as a test for personal
behaviour, more than anything else, and I tend not to use it because I
prefer the word honest. Whether because of how I was raised, or because of
personal ethical values as an adult, or because professional experience pits
me against the folly of lying, where or whenever, I see no value in being
other than honest with people.
Perhaps the truth is ;-) that Anita was a bit brutal, as is Bargyla, in
honestly stating their minds.
But having expressed doubt about the first three words of the Anita quote
above, I concur with the rest of it, entirely. It is true that I have that
view. I doubt it's worth. Bit it's not worth the paper to argue whether the
statement is the 'truth'; too many will disagree, anyway. In the end,
language is everything, the vehicle and the meaning of all ideas and beliefs
(acknowledging that the most mysterious intellectual, emotional and physical
experiences acquire beauty often by being inexpressible, which for some
makes them spiritual, mystical or religious experiences).
We need to be honest with each other, but we need to try to be gentle at the
same time. The problem, I acknowledge is that some will find some ideas,
however expressed, offensive to their own beliefs. That goes for what I have
said above too, I am sure.
My own position with my own family makes this clear to me. I find their
fundamentalist faith deeply limiting and at times offensive in the
prejudiced views sometimes imposed on me; they view me as a lost soul, also
something dangerous to be wiped off the benchtop or at least not invited
into the kitchen of their minds. And I would no more try to get Bargyla to
alter her views than I would seek to alter my 84 year old mother's views.
Some things are too hard, apart from anything else.
On the internet, we diversely-opinioned folks are in an extraordinary
environment where I think we speak to each other with more candour than we
may elsewhere.
My own view on the issue of organic farming and spirituality is that the
link has dangers.
I believe it can and should be argued that modern organic farming can be
more scientific that modern scientific agriculture (exposing the word
science to review), to the extent that it takes into account broad
ecological processes, ignored in 'crop/pest/damn the soil' agriculture. I
read into some messages on the spiritual theme that it is spiritual to
respect the broader ecology. I think it's important to argue it first as
good sense. 'Spiritual' carries risks in that it may be a lightning rod to
divert energy from further probing thought, or some claim to ownership by
people who are 'spiritual'. (Most of our most cherished beliefs are claims
to status of one kind or another, be it as 'god's chosen' or some other
special status; Kosovo is cut from the grubby end of the same cloth.)
My own perspective might be, were it religious, closer to some Asian
religions than the semitic religions that dominate the developed world. I
find it not demeaning, but uplifting, to remove from my mind notions of
being a chosen species or race or community. I find it useful to think that
we may have, as a species, developed a big front brain not for loftiness but
to cope, as an awkward mutant, without adequate hair, with the heat of the
African plains. And that thus the cognitive processes of which we are so
proud, and on which this message is based, arose because the front brain,
wonderful cooling device that it is, didn't have enough to do in cool
climates and the chilling gives rise to mystical states and hormonal
changes, especially where there are nutritional deficits. There have been
suggestions that body temperatures were higher some centuries ago. Certainly
there are arguments that extravagance of thought and dogmatic belief may be
characteristic of slightly low body temperature
http://www.mall-net.com/mcs/coldbody.html#Scale
But I offer this as food for thought, not as truth. I feel it is more useful
to think and think provocatively rather than accept truths, scientific or
religious.
Dennis
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail