The Oil Drum

Hello,

This is one discussion I was not expecting on TOD.

Bob, you say :
I think they are making a mistake because theology and philosophy represent...

Why do you think that if someone is not religious, that person is not interested in philosophy?

I am not religious, but philosophy has always drawn me. Discussions on morality interest me as well.

Could you elaborate a bit?

Ciao,
FB

Bob,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments especially pointing out that we "don't own the natural world, but instead should be stewards-protectors." The good news we offer, and hopefully try to live out, is to "act with love for the world and its people."

May help to answer why you and I are maverick enough to post on PO despite, or perhaps b/c, of our WASPish establishment baggage. The writing is on the wall, and if life is a journey and not a destination, then it is our role to chuck the weight that bears us down and thereby limits our travel. We are called to speak out.

Speaking out, and this goes for all who offer their insights and wisdom, is always dangerous. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, the prophets were never popular. Jesus paid the price for being so outspoken. From a philosophical vantage, Socrates paid the same penalty.

I mentioned the work of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a couple of reasons: a) her work is well known, and b) she does provide guide-posts on the phenomenon of grief. As anyone in the "caring professions" will tell you grief is messy. There is a mountain of literature on the subject. Yet, the moment any of us are presumptuous enough to think we have it all figured out, whamo, someone or something comes along to prove us wrong.

I fully 100% agree with your assessment of naming. If the western world has one egregious sin it is the pride, dare say hubris, of assuming our world can be dissected, categorized, and pigeonholed into nice little slots and named. Naming gives the illusion of control. Gone is any mystery and any intrinsic value of just being. It also leads us into the temptation to shame and blame when we discover, as inevitably we will, that the illusion does not hold. Sticks and stones will break bones, but it is a lie that names never hurt. Too many graveyards hold the untimely bones or ashes of people named "sub-human", "undesirable", or "not one of us."

Also, names often limit healthy debate since one party or another will be forced on the defensive to disqualify what is implied in the all-too-handy label. A cautionary note: these are the serpents that can creep into unexpected places, including our own rhetoric when trying to prove a point.

The war in Iraq saddens me deeply. As you say, it is seen as a three-way crusade and there is a common impression that it is a religious battle. That's unfortunate. More so, b/c it's an observation that lacks validity and accuracy.

Notwithstanding the bombastic manipulation of leadership, all, and I mean all the religions of the book appeal to highest principles and sentiments of the human condition. To draw from the prophet Micah, many mouth the words and even believe that "they love kindness" and "do justice". What is often overlooked is the last and important part, "to walk humbly with your God." A healthy dose of humility goes a long way to ease the pain we inflict on one another.

The war in Iraq, like all wars in human history, is the result of the lesser qualities of the human condition: pride, greed, anger, lust, envy, sloth, and gluttony. Regardless of what one believes, the seven deadlies are called deadly for a reason.

One of the pieces missing from most media and academic "commentary" on the major questions facing our world is ethical and moral considerations. Sometimes such dimensions are implied but rarely stated openly. This, too, is unfortunate.

You don't have to be a moralist, theologian, or scholar to see the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Nor is intelligence restricted to the few. Why moral and ethical questions are the last to be asked perhaps stems from not wanting to be named as an "expert" or "novice" or "smart-ass" or "ignorant" or "high minded" or "zealot" or "heathen" or "hypocritical" when dealing with the subject. There's that name calling again.

There's no shame with honesty, even when from time to time we are wrong, inconsistent, or found less than perfect. If we can't let our rough edges get knocked off, how on earth will we ever get polished?

Yes, the western world has a long history of theology and philosophy upon which to draw. Both are deep wells of received wisdom and knowledge. One, or the other, and both are accessible to all. Moreover, they are much more nuanced and richer than many would have us believe. We ignore them at our peril. We ignore speaking our truth in love at our peril, too.

Cheers!

What gets me is the way Bob says a number of things which are pretty wacky and probably not at all what he meant to share.

"I'm a minority around here, I really do try to follow a spiritual path."

Whether he meant it or not, Bob is suggesting that the majority here are not following a spiritual path. How he knows any of this to be so -- that he is in the minority here on following a spiritual path (whatever that might mean?) and the majority is not -- is highly questionable, but is illuminated in the following way:

"At least 2/3rds of the folks here are without religion but are very fine and moral people."

Bob is apparently defining this majority as being "without religion" (meaning what exactly?) yet who still are fine and moral people. Despite acknowledgment that folks *without religion* can be decent people he is further distinguishing his belief (?) that it is *with religion* one follows a spiritual path, and hence his alleged minority status.

Oh man, Bob is an endearing fellow but this is ridiculous stuff to write!

As to "I think they are making a mistake..."

I think Bob claiming all manner of things with respect to the position of any minority or majority beliefs about himself and everyone else here on religious or spiritual matters (especially so without explicit definitions!) is the biggest mistake. Say what you want about your own beliefs by all means if so moved, but leave out the pigeon-holing as to what you think anyone else may or may not believe, or anyone's ranking in any of this.

Bob, it isn't just the naming of things that is separatist, it is this categorizing of spiritual matters and what other people may or may not believe (especially according to most formalized religious codes) that is equally if not more so misbegotten. That's the real pity of formal religion and many followers thereof IMHO.