As society's retaliations against truth-seekers and truth-tellers continue to intensify, might Religious Freedom provide a needed sanctuary for those who speak out about inconvenient truths?
It gets complicated, trying to tell science from religion. You have articulated a case that evidence-based pursuit of truth ought to have all the protections enjoyed by Mormons and orthodox Jews. On the other side, we see that the academic establishment of scientists has taken on the status of a priesthood. When the Church was all-powerful in Europe, rich people found it profitable to buy influence in the Church. Now that Science is the religion of the 21st century, rich corporations have bought ought the medical research community. I grew up with a reductionist-materialist view of the world which, for many years, I believed to be evidence-based. I now see that as "faith-based science", and I've made myself unemployable by pursuing scientific leads that undermine established science. "The truth will set you free" -- John 8:31. "The truth will lead to nothing but trouble." -- Galileo
There are enough "unemployable" professors now that one might start a top-notch university that might never be accredited, but the quality of the education would be so high no one would care. I think you nailed it there-- comparing today's research-for-hire to "indulgences" of the church in centuries past.
"And yet, the Earth moves" -- Galileo (attributed)
2. Not all truth is equally valuable to know or pursue.
3. There is a lot of fiction I like.
4. Calling truth a god is anthropomorphizing truth, which seems to make the statement itself kind of internally contradictory, and false, because truth doesn't really have the characteristics one would commonly ascribe to gods, like personality, agency, or consciousness. If someone were to truly revere truth like a god, I wouldn't expect them to write a statement that is so figurative. I would expect concrete, logical, precision.
And knowing some of Gandhi's peculiar and ethically questionable behaviors, views, and statements, I suspect that statement, if he made it, was a form of propaganda / marketing. The biggest pathological liars--those who deceive themselves the most, and those deceive others the most-- have a tendency to claim to be exceptionally loyal to the truth.
The "disinformation expert" is perhaps the iconic pathological liar of the the decade.
1. I accept situational ethics where it would be okay to lie to the Nazis if you knew where Anne Frank was hiding, for example, but generally the "thou shalt not lie" is a widely accepted religious commandment, at least in judeo-christian denominations.
2. Everyone has their own "journey in truth"-- they explore the truths that call to them first, or those which impact their lives first. No lifetime is long enough to explore all of Truth, and that's okay.
3. Fiction exists. Often deeper truths are communicated best by fiction.
4. My background includes Quakerism, so I am comfortable with a less anthropomorphic concept of God. I hold to Attenborough's film biography of Gandhi. Whatever his imperfections may have been, the principles he stood best for still stand as one of the best examples of non-violent success against tyranny.
“ I accept situational ethics where it would be okay to lie to the Nazis if you knew where Anne Frank was hiding”
Which is to say your claim to worship the “Truth” is a lie.
“ "thou shalt not lie" is a widely accepted religious commandment, at least in judeo-christian denominations.”
Not sure what the relevance of “Judeo Christian denominations” are to morality. The Bible’s main character, Yahweh, repeatedly commands genocide and slavery. The character, Moses, known for bringing the “10 commandments” of Yahweh, personally commanded genocide of Midianites and the enslavement of all female virgins. This of course was done even with the commandment of “thou shalt not kill”(or murder, or whatever). You might as well have said “thou shalt not lie” is accepted by Nazism. Lying appears to be a fundamental trait of the various writers of the Bible. Paul, for example, in his letters said that he pretended to be whatever he thought best to persuade people that they should become slaves of the god he believed in. The notion of “Truth” is just a marketing and brainwashing strategy for the Bible.
“ Fiction exists.”
Like the Bible.
“Often deeper truths are communicated best by fiction”
Not like the Bible at all.
“ My background includes Quakerism, so I am comfortable with a less anthropomorphic concept of God.”
And a more anthropomorphic concept of truth, apparently.
“ Whatever his imperfections may have been, the principles he stood best for still stand as one of the best examples of non-violent success against tyranny.”
A lot of biographies of Gandhi are actually hagiography, such as Attenborough’s. I suggest you look deeper into Gandhi the man, and not simply Gandhi the myth. I mean if you care about truth.
His principle of non-violence led him to suggest obscene things like the notion that Hitler should not have been resisted with violence. We are lucky that Europe and Russia didn’t share his principles. Sometimes, “principles” are a morally lazy and cowardly way of avoiding considering *consequences*. Principles often become tyrannical themselves. Often times non violence can be a good strategy, just like truth. Sometimes times it can be a horrible strategy, just like truth.
His asceticism, which he exhorted others to follow, and his effort to exult his own sexual-spiritual fetishes were examples of a kind of tyranny. People can enslave the minds and souls of others without raising a finger in actual physical violence to someone else.
His use of hunger strikes is an example of self inflicted violence in attempt to induce guilt and manipulate people’s behavior. There is also the risk of triggering violence in the response to his death, were it to happen. Threatening possible suicide is a blatant violation of a principle of non violence. Unless the principle doesn’t include self inflicted violence for some peculiar reason. Gandhi did not uphold a “principle of non violence”.
While people frequently cite Gandhi as the cause of India’s independence, there were people who did not preach non-violence who were a big part of it, such as
Subhas Chandra Bose. Arguably India would have not achieved independence from Britain had it not been for violence. Thus, there was no “non violent success against tyranny”. There was simply some political campaigns that were non violent among a larger campaign that included violence and the threat of it.
Overthrowing violent tyranny *only* with non-violence will generally be an ineffectual strategy.
And of course this is only if we consider a narrow conception of violence, which can be misleading. And for someone who is open to the notion that often “deeper truths are communicated by fiction” — physical violence is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to violence. Spiritual violence is a fundamental element of human societies and psychology. Shame and guilt are forms of violence, which Gandhi wielded as his standard weapons of social influence and control. People who reject “on principle” physical violence, end up relying on spiritual violence. The principle of non violence has always been a lie, along with the principle of truth. Total non violence is not possible.
The establishment of a “principle of non-violence” is itself a violent lie.
I live in an intentional community where NVC (non-violent communication) is one or our core agreements, so I'm familiar with the more subtle forms of violence in communication-- guilt, shame, fear, coercion, obligation, etc. We sometimes joke about how some of the more burdensome obligations of living up to NVC ideals comprise a form of "weaponized NVC". Nothing is perfect. There are ideals and there's reality. There is Truth and there are our attempts at describing it. We are all works in progress and sometimes we help each other progress.
You claim that because I would not rat out Anne Frank to the Nazis, that I don't really value truth. I would say that in some exceptional cases there is a difference between what is spoken and what the real questions and the real answers are. In the case of being interrogated by the Nazis, if we put subtitles in the scene, the "translation" would not be:
Q: Do you know where we can find Anne Frank?
A: No. (even though I know where she's hiding)
it would be more like:
Q: Will you help us kill an innocent girl?
A: No. (that is what I call Truth)
I'm not here to defend conventional religions or scriptures but to suggest a new basis for a community of faith and practice in the 21st century in which the fearless and disciplined pursuit of truth in all aspects of life is a shared, core community value.
“I live in an intentional community where NVC (non-violent communication) “
Ah... I have some familiarity with NVC. It is a violent lie.
“We sometimes joke about how some of the more burdensome obligations of living up to NVC ideals comprise a form of "weaponized NVC". “
NVC doesn’t need to be weaponized; it is a weapon. It is like the Trojan Horse.
“Nothing is perfect. There are ideals and there's reality.”
Some ideals are impossible to reach because they are in contradiction with fundamentals of reality or human nature. Those ideals should be generally denounced. Unless a person is trying to run a dystopia. The problem with NVC isn’t simply the execution, it is the foundation.
“We are all works in progress and sometimes we help each other progress. “
When the goal is incoherent then progress is an illusion at best.
“You claim that because I would not rat out Anne Frank to the Nazis, that I don't really value truth.”
No, you don’t really view truth as a god. You do not worship truth. A person can value truth but not in an absolute fashion. I can value exercise but not think it’s right in all amounts and in every context. I never said you don’t really value truth.
“In the case of being interrogated by the Nazis, if we put subtitles in the scene, the "translation" would not be
Q: Do you know where we can find Anne Frank?
A: No. (even though I know where she's hiding)
it would be more like:
Q: Will you help us kill an innocent girl?
A: No. (that is what I call Truth)”
I call this self-deception for the sake of satisfying a misguided moral principle. Going down that path lying and justifying it as truth telling becomes habitual. I suspect it’s what many CIA agents tell themselves. The best liars are often masters at lying to themselves first. It’s a subtle art. I would be lying if I said I’ve never done it myself. It’s fascinating though to observe you doing it so explicitly. I imagine that you believe your own lie. Very peculiar, interesting, and profound capacity of the human psyche. It helps explain a lot of human behavior.
“I'm not here to defend conventional religions or scriptures but to suggest a new basis for a community of faith and practice in the 21st century in which the fearless and disciplined pursuit of truth in all aspects of life is a shared, core community value.”
Well, before such a community could theoretically even begin, as genuine, the individuals who choose to participate would need to first pursue greater truth about themselves. And if they did they would I think quickly discover that such a pursuit will not be fearless and thus belonging to such a community not possible for them. I suspect though such a community could not exist at all.
But of course, you being so adept at the art of the Truth, maybe you and others, with your skills could create a community that pretends to fearlessly pursue truth in all aspects of life. I bet Jesus and Gandhi would be proud.
It gets complicated, trying to tell science from religion. You have articulated a case that evidence-based pursuit of truth ought to have all the protections enjoyed by Mormons and orthodox Jews. On the other side, we see that the academic establishment of scientists has taken on the status of a priesthood. When the Church was all-powerful in Europe, rich people found it profitable to buy influence in the Church. Now that Science is the religion of the 21st century, rich corporations have bought ought the medical research community. I grew up with a reductionist-materialist view of the world which, for many years, I believed to be evidence-based. I now see that as "faith-based science", and I've made myself unemployable by pursuing scientific leads that undermine established science. "The truth will set you free" -- John 8:31. "The truth will lead to nothing but trouble." -- Galileo
There are enough "unemployable" professors now that one might start a top-notch university that might never be accredited, but the quality of the education would be so high no one would care. I think you nailed it there-- comparing today's research-for-hire to "indulgences" of the church in centuries past.
"And yet, the Earth moves" -- Galileo (attributed)
“There is no God higher than Truth”
Gandhi was wrong. Truth is not a god, and we should not make it one. Just speaking the truth...
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
1. Sometimes it is right to lie.
2. Not all truth is equally valuable to know or pursue.
3. There is a lot of fiction I like.
4. Calling truth a god is anthropomorphizing truth, which seems to make the statement itself kind of internally contradictory, and false, because truth doesn't really have the characteristics one would commonly ascribe to gods, like personality, agency, or consciousness. If someone were to truly revere truth like a god, I wouldn't expect them to write a statement that is so figurative. I would expect concrete, logical, precision.
And knowing some of Gandhi's peculiar and ethically questionable behaviors, views, and statements, I suspect that statement, if he made it, was a form of propaganda / marketing. The biggest pathological liars--those who deceive themselves the most, and those deceive others the most-- have a tendency to claim to be exceptionally loyal to the truth.
The "disinformation expert" is perhaps the iconic pathological liar of the the decade.
1. I accept situational ethics where it would be okay to lie to the Nazis if you knew where Anne Frank was hiding, for example, but generally the "thou shalt not lie" is a widely accepted religious commandment, at least in judeo-christian denominations.
2. Everyone has their own "journey in truth"-- they explore the truths that call to them first, or those which impact their lives first. No lifetime is long enough to explore all of Truth, and that's okay.
3. Fiction exists. Often deeper truths are communicated best by fiction.
4. My background includes Quakerism, so I am comfortable with a less anthropomorphic concept of God. I hold to Attenborough's film biography of Gandhi. Whatever his imperfections may have been, the principles he stood best for still stand as one of the best examples of non-violent success against tyranny.
“ I accept situational ethics where it would be okay to lie to the Nazis if you knew where Anne Frank was hiding”
Which is to say your claim to worship the “Truth” is a lie.
“ "thou shalt not lie" is a widely accepted religious commandment, at least in judeo-christian denominations.”
Not sure what the relevance of “Judeo Christian denominations” are to morality. The Bible’s main character, Yahweh, repeatedly commands genocide and slavery. The character, Moses, known for bringing the “10 commandments” of Yahweh, personally commanded genocide of Midianites and the enslavement of all female virgins. This of course was done even with the commandment of “thou shalt not kill”(or murder, or whatever). You might as well have said “thou shalt not lie” is accepted by Nazism. Lying appears to be a fundamental trait of the various writers of the Bible. Paul, for example, in his letters said that he pretended to be whatever he thought best to persuade people that they should become slaves of the god he believed in. The notion of “Truth” is just a marketing and brainwashing strategy for the Bible.
“ Fiction exists.”
Like the Bible.
“Often deeper truths are communicated best by fiction”
Not like the Bible at all.
“ My background includes Quakerism, so I am comfortable with a less anthropomorphic concept of God.”
And a more anthropomorphic concept of truth, apparently.
“ Whatever his imperfections may have been, the principles he stood best for still stand as one of the best examples of non-violent success against tyranny.”
A lot of biographies of Gandhi are actually hagiography, such as Attenborough’s. I suggest you look deeper into Gandhi the man, and not simply Gandhi the myth. I mean if you care about truth.
His principle of non-violence led him to suggest obscene things like the notion that Hitler should not have been resisted with violence. We are lucky that Europe and Russia didn’t share his principles. Sometimes, “principles” are a morally lazy and cowardly way of avoiding considering *consequences*. Principles often become tyrannical themselves. Often times non violence can be a good strategy, just like truth. Sometimes times it can be a horrible strategy, just like truth.
His asceticism, which he exhorted others to follow, and his effort to exult his own sexual-spiritual fetishes were examples of a kind of tyranny. People can enslave the minds and souls of others without raising a finger in actual physical violence to someone else.
His use of hunger strikes is an example of self inflicted violence in attempt to induce guilt and manipulate people’s behavior. There is also the risk of triggering violence in the response to his death, were it to happen. Threatening possible suicide is a blatant violation of a principle of non violence. Unless the principle doesn’t include self inflicted violence for some peculiar reason. Gandhi did not uphold a “principle of non violence”.
While people frequently cite Gandhi as the cause of India’s independence, there were people who did not preach non-violence who were a big part of it, such as
Subhas Chandra Bose. Arguably India would have not achieved independence from Britain had it not been for violence. Thus, there was no “non violent success against tyranny”. There was simply some political campaigns that were non violent among a larger campaign that included violence and the threat of it.
Overthrowing violent tyranny *only* with non-violence will generally be an ineffectual strategy.
And of course this is only if we consider a narrow conception of violence, which can be misleading. And for someone who is open to the notion that often “deeper truths are communicated by fiction” — physical violence is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to violence. Spiritual violence is a fundamental element of human societies and psychology. Shame and guilt are forms of violence, which Gandhi wielded as his standard weapons of social influence and control. People who reject “on principle” physical violence, end up relying on spiritual violence. The principle of non violence has always been a lie, along with the principle of truth. Total non violence is not possible.
The establishment of a “principle of non-violence” is itself a violent lie.
I live in an intentional community where NVC (non-violent communication) is one or our core agreements, so I'm familiar with the more subtle forms of violence in communication-- guilt, shame, fear, coercion, obligation, etc. We sometimes joke about how some of the more burdensome obligations of living up to NVC ideals comprise a form of "weaponized NVC". Nothing is perfect. There are ideals and there's reality. There is Truth and there are our attempts at describing it. We are all works in progress and sometimes we help each other progress.
You claim that because I would not rat out Anne Frank to the Nazis, that I don't really value truth. I would say that in some exceptional cases there is a difference between what is spoken and what the real questions and the real answers are. In the case of being interrogated by the Nazis, if we put subtitles in the scene, the "translation" would not be:
Q: Do you know where we can find Anne Frank?
A: No. (even though I know where she's hiding)
it would be more like:
Q: Will you help us kill an innocent girl?
A: No. (that is what I call Truth)
I'm not here to defend conventional religions or scriptures but to suggest a new basis for a community of faith and practice in the 21st century in which the fearless and disciplined pursuit of truth in all aspects of life is a shared, core community value.
“I live in an intentional community where NVC (non-violent communication) “
Ah... I have some familiarity with NVC. It is a violent lie.
“We sometimes joke about how some of the more burdensome obligations of living up to NVC ideals comprise a form of "weaponized NVC". “
NVC doesn’t need to be weaponized; it is a weapon. It is like the Trojan Horse.
“Nothing is perfect. There are ideals and there's reality.”
Some ideals are impossible to reach because they are in contradiction with fundamentals of reality or human nature. Those ideals should be generally denounced. Unless a person is trying to run a dystopia. The problem with NVC isn’t simply the execution, it is the foundation.
“We are all works in progress and sometimes we help each other progress. “
When the goal is incoherent then progress is an illusion at best.
“You claim that because I would not rat out Anne Frank to the Nazis, that I don't really value truth.”
No, you don’t really view truth as a god. You do not worship truth. A person can value truth but not in an absolute fashion. I can value exercise but not think it’s right in all amounts and in every context. I never said you don’t really value truth.
“In the case of being interrogated by the Nazis, if we put subtitles in the scene, the "translation" would not be
Q: Do you know where we can find Anne Frank?
A: No. (even though I know where she's hiding)
it would be more like:
Q: Will you help us kill an innocent girl?
A: No. (that is what I call Truth)”
I call this self-deception for the sake of satisfying a misguided moral principle. Going down that path lying and justifying it as truth telling becomes habitual. I suspect it’s what many CIA agents tell themselves. The best liars are often masters at lying to themselves first. It’s a subtle art. I would be lying if I said I’ve never done it myself. It’s fascinating though to observe you doing it so explicitly. I imagine that you believe your own lie. Very peculiar, interesting, and profound capacity of the human psyche. It helps explain a lot of human behavior.
“I'm not here to defend conventional religions or scriptures but to suggest a new basis for a community of faith and practice in the 21st century in which the fearless and disciplined pursuit of truth in all aspects of life is a shared, core community value.”
Well, before such a community could theoretically even begin, as genuine, the individuals who choose to participate would need to first pursue greater truth about themselves. And if they did they would I think quickly discover that such a pursuit will not be fearless and thus belonging to such a community not possible for them. I suspect though such a community could not exist at all.
But of course, you being so adept at the art of the Truth, maybe you and others, with your skills could create a community that pretends to fearlessly pursue truth in all aspects of life. I bet Jesus and Gandhi would be proud.