It's all relative
It seems to me that the more simple minded a person is, the more they tend to see things as black and white or right and wrong. This "either/or" is a simplistic way of looking at the world. Religious teachings and doctrines are based on this idea, that everything is either right or wrong, good or bad. Children tend to view the world as black and white. I'm not saying this is good or bad. Actually, it serves those well that need to have a narrow perception of life. Within the parameters of this narrow perception, there is a comfort zone. It narrows the field of decisions you have to make from moment to moment. There is less room for mistakes. It's much easier to make judgement calls as well as judge other people.
The world of relativity is a much broader playing field. Big can only exist if there is something small to compare it too. Our solar system is big, right? It is if you are comparing it to a planet. But when you compare it to a galaxy, it is very small. So what is big? In the world of relativity, right and wrong become gray areas. Good only exists if it can be compared to something bad. If everybody on earth was generous, there would be no such thing as generosity, it would just be the way people are. When the ancient Greek soldiers practiced homosexuality with each other while out on campaigns, there was no judgement call about it. They all did it so it was considered normal. Conservative Christians have a problem with this concept because they have a need to know right from wrong. Life is simpler if someone just tells us what to do and what to believe.
A few years back I was discussing this subject with a friend of mine who was a born again Christian. He said, "I need the structure of religion to keep me on track. I need to know what is right and wrong. If left to my own devices, I would crumble." Great, that's why we have religion, for people like him. Some of us, however, do fine left to our "own devices." The problem I have with people like him is that he tried to tell me my view point was wrong. It was wrong....to him....because he could not understand a word I was talking about. I walked away from that conversation thinking, "I guess you can't put a 10 lb idea into a 5 lb brain."
In reality, there is no good or bad. We as a culture define good and bad based on what behaviors are acceptable at this time in this particular culture. Good and bad are always temporary and always changing. Morality is a point of view. For anything to exist as good or bad, we must agree that it is good or bad. Even then, it gets murky. You could say it is good to win the lottery. What if the person who won the lottery became vain and egotistical over being rich, was it then bad that he won? What if he became vain but gave a large part of his winnings to charity, was it now good again that he won? What if the money he kept for himself went to support a drug addiction, then is it bad that he won? Is a child getting killed by a drunk driver good or bad? What if the child's mother channels the anger and pain into starting a group like MADD which helped to raise public awareness about drinking and driving, then was that child dying good or bad? Is it good to torture if lives can be saved from the information that is gotten from a torture victim? Is it wrong to kill? What if it was in self defense? What is you thought it was in self defense but in reality you miss read the attackers motives? All of life works this way. All things are interwoven, all things are relative.
So if this is true then what rules do we follow? Well, here's the thing....we need good and bad and black and white because mankind is so out of touch with his true spiritual nature that without the guidelines and rules, society would fall apart. If all of mankind were in touch with his inner divinity (higher self), we would all understand and possess true empathy. We could not hurt or take advantage of another any easier than we could hurt ourselves because we would know that on a spiritual level, we are all connected. We would have no choice but to be true to our heart and therefore our guidelines would be in sink with our highest ideals and our deepest understanding of who we are. In such a world we would need no laws, rules, guidelines, locks, or weapons. There would be no need to define right and wrong or good and bad. But for now this is not that kind of a world. For now, we need religion and rules, and black and white and right and wrong. But, maybe someday....
Comments
"I'm not saying this is good or bad."
Yes, you are, after a fashion. You are saying that right/wrong and good/bad thinking is simplistic and childish and unworthy of anyone with a 10lb brain, and that if people were more mature and spiritual and aware and evolved, they would think differently.
That's close enough to "bad" for me! But then I'm one of those simpletons with a 5lb brain.
Joe's reply....Jeff, your right. I was making a judgement. You are also right in saying that if people were more mature and aware, they would think differently....well, wouldn't they?
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | October 19, 2007 04:24 PM
Thanks for the reply, Joe. But I don't believe your position is tenable. Here are your actual choices:
1. Relativism is absolutely true (which makes you an absolutist).
2. Relativism might be true (which means that absolutism might be true as well).
3. Relativism is true when it comes to things I don't want to judge, and false when it comes to things I do want to judge (which is convenient, but nonsense of course).
Anyone who says he is a relativist, therefore, in reality holds one of these three positions, each of which ends in self-contradiction. There are no other options.
There are no true relativists: only deceived absolutists.
It seems to me that mature and aware people (maturity and awareness are *good* things, right?) are those who best understand Reality. And by that I mean they also understand their own limitations in apprehending Reality.
So they are perhaps not quick to judge, but judge they must, because some things are consistent with Reality and other things are not.
Joe's reply....I look at it this way Jeff....Relativism is not absolutely true because there is no such thing as absolute truth. Just as time and space go on forever, so does God, and therefore, so does truth as well as reality. And since truth is not an absolute, I believe I can say that something is true without being an absolutist. I would say that relativism is true but not absolutely because in this world of illusions and contradictions, nothing is real, not in the way we think it is. I mentioned in an earlier blog that quantum physics states that there is no such thing as a solid particle and therefore there is no definite point where our bodies stop and the space outside of our bodies begin, or where anything begins and ends for that matter. Atoms are made up of energy particles that don't really exist in any one particular place for any period of time. They move in and out of existence at the speed of light. That means that everything we see around us is in a constant state of materializing and dematerializing. Our eyes cannot see this phenomena so what we think we see as solid is only an illusion. There is nothing absolute about anything that appears as physical. So I agree with your statement that we have "limitations in apprehending reality."....boy do we!
I would challenge you to tell me one thing or one concept that is absolute, other than the fact that we exist. And although you could call existence an absolute truth, the being that exists is not an absolute because we are forever changing. And if everything that exists is an illusion, then perhaps the only true relaity is consciouseness itself, and there are scientist that are exploring that possible reality.
Judging is neccessary for survival in a physical world. I had an ex who yelled at me a lot and when I couldn't take anymore of her yelling, I would yell back for her to quit yelling. She would say, "Your yelling." Since we are trying to survive in a world of illusions, we must use illusion to deal with illusion. I do not believe in killing, and yet I would kill if I had to protect myself from being killed ( I am not a pacifest). I am a vegetarian but I kill plants to eat them. Society kills people for killing people. Life is indeed filled with contradictions. I live by contradictions....we all do. To think is to make a judgement call, it's part of the game. I believe that we come into this world not to figure out right from wrong but to test ourselves against adversity. Adversity can only exist in a relative world. This is how we, as eternal beings, evolve and grow. In a pure spiritual world, it could be that there are no absolutes and nothing is relative....everything just is....which means that a spiritual world would not a good place to test ourselves.
Anyway, that's how I see it....I could be wrong, you could be right, we just have to go with what makes sense to us....unless you are religious, then you go with what your told.
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | October 20, 2007 10:58 AM
Andy says....
Joe,
The way I see it, you did not get past Jeff's argument. In your reply to Jeff you state: "Relativism is not absolutely true because there is no such thing as absolute truth." This very statement that you make is an absolute on your part.
Joe reply's....I would say that relatism is true but not absolutely because relativism would only be true in a physical world, not a spiritual or higher demension....it just seems to me that at some point relativism would cease to exist in a demension where there were no ups or downs, over here and over there, etc., everything just is....but who knows? I am speaking about how I see it and based on my philosophy, relativism would not exist in such a world, therefore relativism is not absolutely true, it in itself is relative as to what demension we are speaking about. To call my statement an absolute goes back to what I said about my ex yelling at me for yelling at her for yelling at me. It's a world of contradictions for sure. Any belief I express, I am absolutely expressing, so based on that play of words, you can call me an absolutist, fine.
Andy says....You then attempt to qualify it as not being an absolute with the following statement:
"And since truth is not an absolute, I believe I can say that something is true without being an absolutist."
Seems to me you're creating a world according to Joe.
Joe reply's....That's a good point....I think we all create our own world, relative to what we believe. Have you seen the movie, "What the bleep do we know?" It could be that we are all creating our own reality as we go along, or at least our own interpretation of reality.
Andy says....
You then ask:
"I would challenge you to tell me one thing or one concept that is absolute."
Since Jeff did not respond with an answer, I will:
Joe Shaw is as judgmental against "religious" people as he claims they are to him and others. Why else would you feel the need to make such a generally critical statement at the end of your comments when you say:
"unless you are religious, then you go with what your told."
Joe say's....Sorry, that was tongue and cheek, but harsh, I would agree. I have always had that issue with religions, that the people follow like sheep a bit too much, but thats ok with me. We all need something to believe in.
Andy says....
According to you, religious people are not capable of making decisions based on a sense of right or wrong.
Joe says....I thought I said the opposite, that religious people are making all decisions based on right or wrong,at least what is right or wrong to them, because they see the world as black and white...absolute right and wrongs. I just don't think it's that simple.
Andy says....
Hmmm, isn't your original complaint against religious people that they too often judge people to be wrong, based on what make sense to them?
Joe say's....I would say that is a point, rather than a complaint. We all judge people based on what makes sense to us. I know I do. I believe however, we should not be too quick to judge a persons relationship to their God or their concept of God.....My belief is that in the end, it doesn't matter what we believe or what religion we are a part of, it only matters what we do with the time we have in this world. We define who we are by what we do, not by what we believe. ..I must say, I really do appreciate you and Jeff engaging me in a little mental gymnastics. Fell free anytime and let me know if you feel like I have skipped around any point. I do respect where you guys are coming from. Again, please forgive my unresolved religious issues, they will crop up from time to time (I went to catholic school) but Im working on it.
Posted by: Andy | October 22, 2007 04:00 PM
Jeff says....I enjoyed Andy's comments and thank him for contributing to the conversation.
Joe, you wrote:
"... there is no such thing as absolute truth."
Don't you see why this is nonsense? If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then the statement "there is no such thing as absolute truth" may not, in fact, be true. Which means that absolute truth is at least a theoretical possibility. Which means you are not a relativist after all.
Joe says....To me, God, truth, and reality are words that all mean the same thing. For anything to be absolute, it must have an end game to its existence or meaning. How can we know if God or truth has an end game? It could be (as it is in my belief) that there is no limitation or ending to God and His potential. So anything that we would define as truth, is only a certain aspect of truth that we are looking at. We cannot see the all of anything, not even a tree! What we see or notice about anything or any concept is a part of it's truth. Whatever part of the tree we are noticing, is relative to the part we are not noticing. If we see that the tree is tall, it is only tall relative to what we would consider a short tree.
Jeff says (quoting Joe )...."..I could be wrong, you could be right, we just have to go with what makes sense to us."
I appreciate the intended humility of this statement, but for the sake of clarity I think we need to examine what you are saying here. If you truly believe that I could be right, then you truly believe that absolute truth may actually exist. Therefore it follows that those who believe in absolute truth - religious people, for instance - should not be dismissed as simpletons, cretans, or unenlightened and unevolved thinkers. Such people may have a point. Their ideas are worthy of consideration.
Joe says....Of course you could be right. I am always reminding people that whatever I write about is only my opinion, the way I see things. That's what bloggers do. You could do a blog of your "truth." Yes, absolute truth may actually exist. Right now, I do not see the world that way. Religious peoples, any people's ideas are worth considering. But from my own personal experience, I was raised religiously and I know all about that point of view. Since I left religion, I have been free to explore other points of view. So although relious peoples ideas may be worthy of consideration, I considered them for the first 20 years of my life and concluded that they were too simplistic, there was so much more to the possibilities of whats going on here than what any religion had to offer. When they cannot answer something, they pull out the faith card. That is not to say you or anybody else that believes in religion is limited or simplistic, you may very well be laughing at my ignorance. Im saying the religious teachings and doctrines are simplistic and, to me, misleading.
Jeff says....The relativist position of "your truth is good for you, mine is good for me, let's create our own reality" is actually the enemy of thought. It is a conversation stopper and prevents one from engaging truth-claims on their own merits. If I look at a square table and say "this table is round", and you reply "it is whatever you perceive it to be", then we will never get around to actually examining the table itself. Because the table is not taken seriously, the mind is not taken seriously.
Joe says....We may all see the same thing but have a different perspective on what we are seeing, according to our own reality. I used to see old tables as junk furniture until I got into antiques. Then I would look at that same table and see things I did not see before. Now I am seeing craftmanship, or art, now I see a treasure where I used to see old junk. The table did not change, just my perception of the table changed. The table is round, but round only exists as round because there is also square. In a universe where everything is round, there would be no definition of round. There is up and down on earth as compared to the sky and the ground. In outer space there is no up or down. Which way would be up?
Jeff says....From a sociological perspective, what could be a source of unity - agreement on the shape and characteristics of the table - becomes a source of division because it is never really examined. Two people disagree about something when disagreement is unnecessary, irrational, and will lead to all sorts of problems. They will not be able to cooperate with respect to anything pertaining to this table until they agree about its essential shape and characteristics. Imagine trying to move the table, or sell the table, or repair the table, etc., when one thinks it is square and the other things it is round ...
Joe says....I agree. We do not see different shapes. I was speaking about perspective. Our belief system helps to shape our perspective. Change your beliefs and you change your world....but the table remains round.
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | October 23, 2007 10:06 AM
Jeff says....(quoting Joe)...."I believe that we come into this world not to figure out right from wrong but to test ourselves against adversity."
Again, with all due respect, this is another statement that implodes on itself. That we come into this world to test ourselves against adversity is something you obviously believe to be right, true, and correct. Therefore we DO come into this world to figure out right from wrong - to figure out that we come into this world for one reason, which is right, and not for another reason, which is wrong.
Joe says....There are many ways to define right and wrong. They do exist, but are always relative. If I come to this world to test myself against adversity and fail to do so (like if I died from alchoholism) then I would simply come back here another time and try it again. Becoming an alchoholic was wrong, as compared to right (which would have been if I did not become an alchoholic and faced my adversity) but ultimately it would not matter because in the end, I will do what I want to do in this world....sooner or later.... therefore there is no ultimate right or wrong. It all works out. I understand that my belief in reincarnation could start a whole new dialogue....I would need some time, however, to recover from this one first....
Jeff says....(quoting Joe)...."Adversity can only exist in a relative world."
How so? Adversity is a reality: either it exists, or it doesn't. That's not relativism.
Joe says....If you are saying that because something exist's it cannot be realitive but must be an absolute by the nature of it's existence, well....damn boy, why you got to be so difficult with me? We do "absolutely" exist. Relativism does not define existence, it defines the laws of motion and energy within the framework of existence.
Jeff says....(quoting Joe)....."This is how we, as eternal beings, evolve and grow."
A true statement. As opposed to false. :-)
"In a pure spiritual world, it could be that there are no absolutes and nothing is relative....everything just is...."
This is not a pure spiritual world. But a world in which "everything just is" is, by definition, a world of
absolutes.
Joe says....Not if you consider that in a spiritual plane which exist's beyond time and space, everything would exist as pure potential, not as form or definition of any kind. Relativism and absolute would have no meaning in such a world. Words nor logic can define such a place, nor can the human mind wrap itself around such a concept. In a place such as this, all logic would have to be checked at the door.
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | October 23, 2007 10:14 AM
Jeff says....(quoting Joe)..."My belief is that in the end, it doesn't matter what we believe or what religion we are a part of, it only matters what we do with the time we have in this world. We define who we are by what we do, not by what we believe..."
But what we do has everything to do with what we believe. If I believe in a holy, just, and merciful God then I will try to be holy, just, and merciful in my actions.
If I don't believe that God exists, or that there is any meaning in the universe, then I won't ascribe any significance to my actions one way or the other. It will not matter whether I do "good" things or "bad" things because "good" and "bad" do not exist.
Joe says....Maybe I should have used the word "ascribe" instead of "believe". We do tend to live according to our beliefs. But many ascribe to Christianity and lead less than honorable lives (maybe they don't really believe?) just as many atheist's live very honorable lives. True honor comes from the heart or the soul, not from what you believe, although belief is surely an influence. Good and bad do exist, but only as being relative to each other. Remember my example about generosity?
Jeff says....Furthermore belief is itself an act. Belief matters precisely because "what we do" matters.
Joe says....I agree, but a person can be a hypocrite which means he is not being true to his own beliefs. What we do is not always in sync with what we believe. To me, belief is another word for opinion.
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | October 23, 2007 11:13 AM
Joe,
When reading your comments on this and other blogs, I can't help but notice that you seem to be rather concerned with Christians who act hypocritically, and to some degree use them as the reason to diminish the Christian faith (or as you say "religious people"). There are many people in this world who struggle everyday in the path to live an honorable and holy life, in which we treat ourselves, others, and our creator with deserving respect. No one is perfect.
It is easy to target Christians for being hypocritical because they have made their faith commitment public knowledge. A non-Christian who might act in the same manner can just be dismissed as "misguided", "rude", "selfish", and so on. When one chooses to place their faith in Christ, they don't do so because they are now fully prepared and equipped to stop sinning. They do so because they acknowledge the fact that they need their creator to help guide them through life, to resist the damaging, worthless and fading temptations that confront all of us, and to help us focus on, and pursue our purpose for living.
Having been raised Catholic you are probably familiar with the scripture in which the apostle Paul asked his savior, "why is it that I keep doing the things I wish to stop doing, and am unable to do the things I wish to do?"
Would it be fair to label Paul, probably the most "committed Christian" to ever walk this planet, a "hypocrite". I don't think he would have argued with you if you did.
Joe's reply....Andy, I realize that we are all hypocrites now and then. We are just human and struggling to make sense out of a complicated situation. Here's why I get a little short with Christians more so than others. Christian morality dominates too many of our laws. It goes back to what I have said time and time again on this blog....Republicans say they are for getting out of peoples personal lives when in fact, they dictate what we can and cannot do in our personal lives more than liberals do, and these laws, based on morality, are dictated by the christian right. Medical marijuana, homosexuals, euphanasia, prostitution, birth control and abortion(your working on this these two)....these are a few areas that the government has control over what I think should be personal moral choices, and I blame christians because they think they know what is right and wrong for everybody else. You folks get in a tizzy over liberals when they dictate their moralities about prayer in schools or pledging allegiance to the flag. But you refuse to look at how others might feel about your influences in outlawing or wanting to outlaw our personal choices and beliefs. We may be the best country on earth but we are far from being a free country. And we never will be as long as we have religious people forcing their principals on everybody else. You talk about "placing your faith in Christ." This is the problem with the christian movement. It is becoming less about the message and more about the messenger. My personal over-all belief on christianity is this....I do not like nor do I respect (most of) the culture or the beliefs of most of the mideast people (A strong statement for sure, but Im being honest). Therefore I surely am not going to live my life based on their teachings and stories from thousands of years ago when they were even less evolved than they are now!
Posted by: Andy | October 25, 2007 12:25 AM
Joe, seems to me that I have stirred up a hornets nest with you. I said nothing about liberal or republican policies. Yet you refer to me as "you are working on this too (abortion), "you people", "you refuse". The point I was trying to make earlier is that we are all individuals, with different weaknesses. Just because one Christian person acts hypocritically, the Christian faith/message is not at fault.
Joes reply....I agree, however, it's not just one person influencing and dictating moralities that we are allsupposed to live by, it's really the the larger part of the christian movement. When I referred to "you", I assumed you were christian, I thought you had mentioned you were, sorry if I assumed something without basis.
Andy goes on(this is Andy I believe, he didnt leave a name this time)......From my perspective, the concern Christians have is not in being able to impose morality on other people, but in preserving certain moral rights that Christians have enjoyed in this nation since it's creation.
Joe says....But christians ARE imposing their moralities. I believe that christians should be true to their own beliefs i.e., if you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry somebody of the same sex. If you don't believe in euphanasia, then don't ever do it....you see where Im coming from? I would never tell anybody that they could or should not do something (that doesnt hurt somebody else) just because I do not believe in it. I understand that abortion is open to debate on this one because the christian belief is that it does hurt somebody else (I'll save my thoughts on that for another blog). And speaking of euphanasia, my father was a hard core catholic man and we used to debate euphanasia for hous on end. He was totally against it. But near the end of his cancer, in the weeks before he died, he was begging to be put out of his misery. Point is, we should not be too quick to judge choices that others make for themselves when we have not walked in their shoes.
Andy says....You said "This is the problem with the christian movement. It is becoming less about the message and more about the messenger."
What is so wrong with this? Christ IS the message. According to scripture, Christ WAS the word. Without Christ, there is no Christian message. I would like to hear your perspective on this in more detail.
Joe says....It really boils down to what you believe. I believe that Christ came here to show us a better way to live and he did this by example. If you believe that Jesus message was all about Him, I cannot argue that with you, you are free to believe that. Now you can find phrases in the bible to back up your belief, and that is fine too, if you believe in the bible to the letter. However, you should read the bible in detail before you say that it is true to the letter, that we should live exactly how it tells us. Because then you would be stoning your neighbors for committing adultery and you could not sit where a menstruating woman has sat for a week, and, well, you see what I mean.
Andy says....Lasty, you say "Therefore I surely am not going to live my life based on their teachings and stories from thousands of years ago when they were even less evolved than they are now!"
Regardless of how long ago these "teachings and stories" were written, what specifically do they teach to you that makes you critique them as "less evolved"?
Joes reply....The nice thing about being raised catholic is that we never had to memorize scripture, just cathecism books. Therefore, I am not an expert on the bible nor do I care to be. I have read and heard enough to know that there is some dark spooky stuff, horrible atrocities committed by God as well as his prophits and messengers(However, I know that Jesus did not do these things). The bible is full of hypocrisies and the moralities that it teaches are based on the moralities of the mid easterners that wrote the bible, not a lot unlike the moralities of modern day fundamental muslims beliefs. Christians do not practice many of these things any longer (thank God), althought they once did, because they have always picked and choose which things of the bible fit their purpose at the time and which ones are out dated. The early popes used to rewrite the bible according to the laws they wanted to implement on their followers and the things they wanted them to believe and not believe. I understand that there are a lot of beautiful and lofty ideas presented thruout the bible and that's great, use those ideas to uplift your thinking or live a better life. Calling the bible a book of truth and building a religion based upon it's teachings is going a little too far. For me, there is just too much fear, negativity, teachings based on their currant culture and customs of the times, scarry Gods, a lot of insanity and craziness....just not my kind of book.
By the way, you have not stirred up a hornets nest. I enjoy this sort of thing, although I hope we have moved on from the relativism versus absolutism. There is only so many ways I can express my beliefs. To go any deeper on that subject, I would have to be a mystic or a physicist, and I am neither.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 25, 2007 12:48 PM