Believing 10/28/17

My policy is not to believe anything. 

That may be hard to grasp, and it was for me when someone asked, "Do you believe in love?" But I respond, "Love is better than hate, and I hope love never fails. However, in civic morality, appreciation is more important than love." It is less challenging to say, "Love conquers everything but religion," or "Having-sex defeats making-love continually," or "Empathy can't persist without forgiveness," or "Honesty is insufficient and 'my truth' may be honest." I really can't think of any other tough calls, though.  Hope is eternal , but I need to appreciate before I can either respect or love.

Since posting this, I completed Michael Polanyi's book, Personal Knowledge, 1958, and think he thoroughly considered my trust and commitment, which he refers to as "objectivity" as opposed to "subjectivity." I think on Page 324 of 405, he made it plain to me that his faith is in his Christian God. Whether or not that means he holds that Jesus created everything, as Agathon may have claimed when he described Eros, remains to be discovered. Regardless, Polanyi has already refuted my disclaimer about "belief," not recognizing that I accept his God for him and would not change it because I could be wrong. Thus, while my trust and commitment is to the-objective-truth, I do not claim to believe: I admit to myself that I could be erroneous to hold my trust and commitment, yet I do. I am grateful to Ed Smith (died?) for suggesting that I read Polanyi's book.

Polanyi died in 1976, and I saw no indication he had read Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Divinity School Address," 1838, at Harvard Divinity School (DSA). It is American underground literature, but should be required reading throughout the world. The lecture banned Emerson for thirty years, because therein he claimed Jesus was a man whose message was profaned when Christianity made him a divinity. Jesus' message, in Emerson's mind, was, "You exist to perfect yourself, low as you may now be." Some of us who have read DSA no longer think we were born in error. The potential for perfection is a good ideal, and practicing fidelity to-the-objective-truth may create the path to perfection. 

Post a challenge, please (excluding Pascal's wager or 2+2 can be 5). Attention in Greece in 2015 prompted this revision and is appreciated. Also, Descartes's idea "I think: therefore I am," does not address the-objective-truth. 


Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised 10/28/2017

Why Our Example Is Not to Ever Lie 7/13/2017

One Process for Understanding Both Physical Laws and Ethical Laws[i]

Humankind employs a process for understanding, which applies in both physics and ethics. Both humankind and each person seek comprehension of relations which are thought to exist independently from the researcher. For examples, extraterrestrial life either exists or not, regardless of humankind’s apprehensions, and mutual appreciation is more satisfying than hate, regardless of the culture.

In physics, statements of comprehension may be cosmic discoveries, for example, that the universe seems expanding. There are equations, as in elementary mathematics:  2+2 = 4. In physics, 2 apples plus 2 oranges equals 4 fruit. Contrary statements, like 2+2 = 5 (2 = 3), occur in art or games. For example, to metaphorically express the illusion that team effort exceeds the sum of members’ contributions. The facts of physics contradict the metaphor, yet humans empower each other.

Comprehension is not “supposed to” apply in the intellectual world or social world, such as ethics, but does. For example, consider the conflicting 1+1 = 1 that is common in competition for dominant opinion, as in my God plus your God = my God. In other words one party’s part of the summation is zero: 1 = 0. Together we consider: Is your God our God? But we recall that we each have unique views of our differing traditions or associations or privacy, yet appreciate each other as we are. We agree that 1+1 = 2 or 1 = 1. On the other hand, the Dali Lama, I think erroneously, said,

The law of action and reaction is not exclusively for physics. It is also of human relations.
If I act with goodness, I will receive goodness. If I act with evil, I will get evil.[ii]

However, in human relations, reciprocity often fails; the Dali himself is a forced exile. Thus, comprehensions have a common characteristic: each comprehension is true, false or uncertain; adequate, inadequate or unknown. In other words, each understanding may be expressed, either true or false or no one knows. Because we appreciate each other despite our differing usage of “God,” we are willing to collaborate to understand the-objective-truth.[iii] Yet, even as we admit that some things we do not know, we each maintain our hopes about our God or none.

The process for understanding has a further characteristic. The noble work toward comprehension does not express emotions. For the researcher, there is only being, but no wishing; no praising; no agenda; no ideology; no pride; no contradiction; no goal beyond comprehension. Each individual who seeks understanding perseveringly rejects coercion from anyone, yet also behaves so as to not coerce anyone. When we recognize self-persuasion, we stop; we strive to discover self-contradiction and eliminate it. Guided by understanding, we need not respond to doctrine, like, “’Thou shalt not lie.’”

Yet, we do not feel at all that it is meaningless to ask such questions as: Why should we not lie? We feel that such questions are meaningful because in all ethical considerations some premises are tacitly taken for granted.  We then feel satisfied when we succeed in tracing back the ethical directive in question to these basic premises. In the case of lying this might perhaps be done like this: Lying destroys confidence in the statements of other people. Without such confidence, collaboration is made impossible or at least difficult. For example, after the lie, the liar may fear future dialogue with the deceived party, who, in turn, may sense the liar’s apprehension. Or, judging from his own behavior, the liar may suspect the deceived party is also a liar. Collaboration, however, is essential to make human life possible, even worthy of appreciation. Thus, our commitment, we shall not lie, has been traced back to the demands: Human life shall be preserved and pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible. The just person gravitates toward personal autonomy and collaborative autonomy yet complete integrity; rejects fear, and embraces empathy for other persons and self. Liars separate themselves from a willing people.

Thus, it seems the process for understanding can apply to ethics. Quoting Einstein, “Ethical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge. If we can agree on some fundamental ethical propositions, then other propositions can be derived from them, provided that the original premises are stated with sufficient precision.” For example, persons expect appreciation to overcome hatred. “Such ethical premises play a similar role in ethics, to that played by axioms in mathematics.”

“But what is the origin of such ethical axioms? Are they arbitrary? Are they based on mere authority? Do they stem from [humankind’s experiences], and are they conditioned by such experiences?”

“For pure logic all axioms seem arbitrary, including the axioms of ethics. But they are by no means arbitrary from a psychological and genetic point of view. They are derived from our inborn tendencies to avoid pain and annihilation and from the accumulated . . . reaction[s] of individuals to the behavior[s] of their neighbors.” Just as physics exists and can only be discovered, ethics exists and can only be discovered. Just as physics may be vainly denied, ethics may be unjustly denied.

“It is the privilege of [humankind’s] ethical genius . . . to advance ethical axioms which are so comprehensive and so well founded that [persons accept] them as grounded in the vast mass of their individual . . . experiences,” the accumulation of experiences from more than 100 billion lives over some two million years. For an individual to learn ethics is a daunting quest, because humans are born totally uniformed. Nevertheless, each person, after becoming basically informed, has the potential to enjoy some sixty years to psychologically mature and to help fulfill and expand the ethical axioms of humankind. The gift of life presents the opportunity and potentials for joy.

“Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from” the physical axioms. [Understanding] is what stands the test of experience” and approaches the-objective-truth.

Addendum

Perhaps Einstein’s discussion was for a cooperative audience, in which case even “white lies” merely prolong the inevitable submission to the-objective-truth. The cancer patient’s question, “Am I going to die,” may be answerable, for example, “We’re going to do everything we can to prevent it,” or, “In time, yes, but we are going to work toward keeping you alive.” Even a child’s innocence can be transitioned without mendacity. For example, a child wise enough to ask if Santa is real gains confidence to hear something like, “Yes: Santa is a metaphor--an annual reminder for each person to maintain good will toward all people.”

The need to deceive the enemy is obvious. However, the deceit must be carefully crafted and executed; obvious deviations from established principles will be accepted by only the most uninformed or gullible person. Gullibility is a deadly error left out of the seven deadly sins, for self-evident reasons; a good shield is humility.

Copyright:  July 12, 2012. Phillip R. Beaver, revised July 13, 2017.  Copy only with permission. (Adapted from Albert Einstein: Out of My Later Years, pp. 114-115)

---

[i] Adapting Albert Einstein’s 1941 speech, “The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics.” Starting at samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/, but corrected to the referenced book. I am not careful with quotation marks, especially in the early part of the essay.

[ii] stateofweb.blogspot.com/ page 18 or facebook.com/TempleOfThePeople/posts/365809766825867 .

[iii] The-objective-truth, both the undiscovered and the understood, exists and can only be discovered by humankind. Human actions may influence events, but the consequences conform to the-objective-truth.

Mystery vs unknown

            “Mystery” is a well used word, but often “unknown” would serve comprehension. What’s the difference? There’s no limit to mystery, but an unknown is constrained to the-objective-truth, or actual reality, which can only be discovered rather than constructed from an assumption. However, acting on mystery can change the consequences of the-objective-truth, which conforms to the laws of physics. Physics is energy, mass and space-time. For example, there were no weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq. People might best beware mystery and deceit.

            Using a dictionary[1], “unknown,” the noun, is "a thing, influence, area, factor, or person that is not discovered, explored, identified, or ascertained." The unfulfilled human endeavors—discovery, exploration, identification, or determination—respect objects. The object--thing, influence, area, factor, or person—must be real. An actual flying object not UFO, an unexplored island, or a person is tangible. Influence and actor often present further uncertainty, because actions without fulfilled endeavors may be erroneous. President G. W. Bush claimed  his god influenced his decision to invade Iraq, but Bush also used mysterious information. Mastering, managing, or at least comprehending the unknowns could be both humankind’s most noble work and a key to each person’s path toward either success or failure.

            “Mystery” means anything that is kept secret or remains unexplained or unknown. Excepting the case when “mystery” is an object of fiction, it may be a synonym of “unknown.” Greek and theological origins and secular conversions are discussed in the etymology.[2] Some people hold the opinion that “mystery” describes any truth that is unknowable except by divine revelation. However, religious “truth” may be both subjective and inconsistent with the-objective-truth or what-is or actual reality. “Divine revelation” is often kept secret or is anecdotal fiction. If “divine revelation” is a myth, then any resulting “mysteries” are doubtful if not false. In other words, the mystery might respect the-objective-truth only by chance. A mystery that is regarded as the truth is a belief. Similar usages of “mystery” involve masked people, fiction writing, and fine art. Thus, “mystery” is likely to indicate an intellectual construct, rather than actual reality, or what-is. However, as I will discuss below, actions taken on unreality often change subsequent consequences, which conform to the-objective-truth. In other words, acting on falsehood nevertheless has consequences. So far, Bush wars have cost $3 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives. 

            In theological debate, “mystery” might comport with a defined god, depending upon the intellectual construct being advocated, while “unknown” might address the actual reality behind the religious construct. I use the expression “ defined god” [3] to indicate that I am writing about either a documented intellectual construct or whatever is in the proponent’s mind. I appreciate whatever may be in control of evolution--if there is anything in control---without claiming I know a god. Secondly, I would point out the circularity of claiming to speak for God: the speaker does not possess the higher argument. Pascal was pleased with his wager[4], but did he know the god he bet on?  I could use the expression “the God” to indicate something in control, even though the capital "G" might seem to indicate that what is in control is in the image of a human and needs praise. I do not know that to be so, and therefore, I avoid the terms: "God," or "the God" rather than "god," except in quotation of others. I think "god" offers comprehension of arguments. Further, it seems to express respect for Exodus 20:7, which also is a mystery.

            It seems both rational and faithful to “whatever is in control of evolution” to accept not knowing what no one knows. Thus, to the question of what is in control of evolution, my choice is to admit to myself and declare to my neighbor that I do not know. And, I behave accordingly. What controls evolution? I do not know. I spent five decades persuading myself that I would “know God,” but will not again willfully turn my back on the-objective-truth. I have no faith in mysteries or secrets, because I placed my trust and commitment in the unknown, actual reality, whatever the-objective-truth is.

            A couple of examples might help the reader consider “god” as a useful expression. First, in his Second Inaugural address, speaking of the warring parties, Abraham Lincoln said, “Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.” These thoughts imply several assumptions: God exists; God hears both parties yet provides no aid; Lincoln believes God leaves control to the more powerful party. I think Lincoln’s statement would have clarity with the convention that what a sect prays to is its god, not God, since both 1) it is unlikely that one of thousands of sects is correct and 2) God may not exist. If so, “His” would not be capitalized and could be "him/her/it." Earlier, Lincoln had written[5], “Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it.” In context, Lincoln seems to be saying that God is punishing both sides for not ending slavery. But using “god” to indicate the object of each side’s prayers would be misleading if Lincoln believes God exists. On the other hand, it does not seem humble for any man, including Lincoln, to speculate a statement like, “Only God can claim it.” Lincoln seemed smart enough but too political to write with clarity. In a second illustration, Noah Feldman’s book, Divided by God, 2005, would seem more humble or less bold with the title, divided by defined gods. The existing title could blame God, whereas the suggested title indicates that theists are effecting the divide. I think Lincoln’s example badly influences subsequent writers’ comprehensions of the issues. It illustrates my claim, above, that “actions taken on unreality often change subsequent consequences.” 
            With better leadership from Lincoln, Feldman might have chosen a title other than “Divided by God.” If he had, his book might help citizens focus on the true source of the divide: Christian factions. I think the American divide is the insistence on preserving the legislative Protestantism originating from the political actions of the First Congress in late April and early May, 1789: They unconstitutionally hired chaplains, who were Protestant. They acted against the preamble to establish for themselves the "divine" legislative authority they were accustomed to as subjects of the English Parliament.

            Humankind suffered loss when Flannery O’Connor became terminally ill. Her fiction imagined such unknowns as the finality of an unexpected encounter with cold-blooded murderers.  But I am grateful to Sally and Robert Fitzgerald for publishing O’Connor’s non-fiction book, Mystery and Manners, 1957, which is about writing. Quoting from Page 81,

The artist uses his reason to discover an answering reason in everything he sees. For him, to be reasonable is to find [in something] the spirit which makes it itself. It is to intrude upon the timeless, and that is only done by the violence of a single minded respect for the truth.

I wish I could ask her, “Why ‘violence’?” A friend speculated violence is beyond passion.[6] Perhaps the experience of juxtaposing her Catholicism in the real world might have been violent for her. It seems violent when someone says, “Phil, you hold your opinions because you have no faith,” so maybe merely discussing religion can feel violent. Maybe facing the-objective-truth is violent. On O'Connor's Page 35 note the capital “T”: “To know oneself . . .  is to measure oneself against Truth, and not the other way around.” I wish I could discuss with O'Connor the idea that both “Truth,” a sort of deification, and “the truth” are insufficient: To express what-is or actual reality, it’s best to employ the phrase “the-objective-truth.” The article "the" is critical to the object of discovery. For complete expression, it is often useful to write “the-objective-truth which can only be discovered.” In so doing, the artist isolates “mystery” as a subjective truth or religious doctrine. 
            It seems O’Connor was drawn to mystery. Page 31:

   Belief in Christian dogma . . . frees the storyteller to observe. It is not a set of rules which    fixes what he sees in the world. It affects his writing primarily by guaranteeing his respect       for mystery.

I wish O’Connor was still sharing such rich personal development of integrity, but she died at age 39, in 1964. I think she was straining to appreciate physics as energy, mass and space-time and the source of the-objective-truth, wherein undiscoverable mystery is falsehood.

            It is well known that inculcation of religious mysteries—beliefs—is best accomplished at a very young age, perhaps by six or seven years old. I guess between a hundred thousand years and under ten thousand years of cultural evolution have provided the statistical evidence. If religious indoctrination is maintained into early adulthood, self-indoctrination is likely to continue for life and into the next generation. In America, the majority of families pass on from generation to generation religious indoctrination. The ill effects on society, especially the un-neighborliness, are obvious to many citizens and the aware minority is now large and growing, currently at about 24% of the population. People would like to develop integrity but don't live in a culture of integrity.
            However, the god tradition is maintained by political regimes, because the people in power know that theism is a proven tool for controlling the people. It is well known because Machiavelli[7] wrote about it in 1513 (in sarcasm to protect his life). Most clerics who write about Machiavelli call him evil or worse. The people could break the harmful cycle of fostering mysteries by mastering the list of key unknowns, including: whether or not a god exists; what existed before the Big Bang, some 13.7 billion years ago; the sequence of emergences, such as cosmic chemistry, physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, life; and the interconnected laws that govern evolution’s reactions to a changing universe. With a good perspective of the unknowns, both parents and children would have a better basis for choosing art forms that make life rewarding for each of them—would know better how to select the happiness they would pursue rather than the dictates of some institution. Equal opportunity to responsibly pursue personally perceived liberty is the shared, neglected objective of the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Only the human individual has the authority to choose how to spend his or her energy.

            Mystery is an element in Esther Perel’s popular talk, “The secret to desire in a long term relationship.”[8] One point she makes is that human sexuality involves a multifaceted continuum of desires. Monogamy, a word she does not use, would not exist without mutual attraction. But commitment to a spouse does not usually terminate chance attraction to other humans, which can threaten monogamy if shared novelty fades. If a couple mutually wants monogamy, they must do the work necessary to explore the unknowns in making love, yet the couple ineluctably share enough opportunity for discovery to last a lifetime together. A simple dance or a glance or the memory in a photo can be lovemaking, as in a great video for Leonard Cohen’s poetry, “Dance Me to the End of Love.”[9] I agree that monogamy is a journey that can last a lifetime with focus on shared unknowns: each love-making better than the last. A person cannot try both monogamy and promiscuity to select a preference. Once there is attraction to monogamy, any deviation has two consequences. First, the offending party has broken a commitment to self and terminated that sense of worthiness. Second, the exploration/discovery of the benefits of continuous, monogamous love-making during shared lifetimes has been interrupted, perhaps terminated by the psychological change. Broken monogamy may terminate the thrill of the kiss---eroticy long after the other sexual organs stopped functioning. Guilt can be overcome, but interrupted experience may not be restore-able. Maybe there’s no mystery—there’s only noble work--in the exploration of the unknown delights by a monogamous couple. Beyond foregoing the advantages of security and fidelity, the person who chooses promiscuity cannot experience the erotic benefits of monogamy.

I wish my parents had indoctrinated me in the unknowns before they taught me their art forms, including Protestantism. That is not to claim that my trust and commitment for life have led to the correct decisions for death. For all I know, during my afterdeath, I will face judgment---in privation. I do not expect it but am prepared for judgment. Also, my view of monogamy may be selfish: I just won’t know what I missed by not being promiscuous. Therefore, I do not want anyone to follow my path: each person must be true to her/his management of the unknown, whether by mystery or by acceptance. By acceptance I mean admitting to your person, "I do not know," when that is so. Each person has the authority to spend his or her energy according to personal preference, keeping in mind that other persons have that authority for their lives.

Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised June 17, 2018

---

[1] Online at: http://dictionary.reference.com/ .

[2] Onlne at:  www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=mystery&searchmode=none .

[3] Adapted from similar usage in Online comments by Herb Freiler in 2014, Baton Rouge, The Advocate.

[4] Online at: plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

[5] Letter to Albert G. Hodges, newspaper editor, April 4, 1864.

[6] John Harbo, private conversation, about 2012.

[7] Online at:  www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm . See Chapter XI. CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES.

[8] Online at: https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_perel_the_secret_to_desire_in_a_long_term_relationship , 19 minutes.

[9] Online at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGorjBVag0I