religion

Lecture: Day One

~ aviewfromthiswilderness ~ 2 Comments

Not for nothing, here are three definitions straight from my lecture on the first day of my Critical Writing and Thinking course:   

Fact. A fact is anything independently verifiable. No one should disagree with the facts unless they haven’t done their homework to find out what is and what is not factual. There are no such things as alternative facts; true facts can be verified and are not obtained from biased individuals with personal agendas. They come from independent sources. Note: The opposing side of an argument would still agree with the facts.

Opinion. A lot of people have the wrong opinion about what an opinion is. It is not how you feel about something. We’ll get to that. It is a “judgement based upon the facts.” So the value of the opinion is dependent on whose judgement it is. Ideally, experts; that is, people who have taken the time, education, and research to find out as much information as possible about a particular idea and disseminate the results for us. They know more about the subject than anyone else and have no agenda in the results. Their experience at being able to decipher information through time and in consultation with various other independent researchers, validates the perspective.  If someone offers an opinion without finding out the expertise or validity of the source, the opinion is in question and often wrong. Yes, it is possible to have a bad or wrong opinion if the judgement is not based upon independent experts.

Belief. This is what many think of as an opinion. A belief is a judgement based upon faith. Not necessarily religious, but that too. It is a conviction not based upon anything directly and empirically verifiable, but through trust. No one is wrong for their beliefs as they are not opinions, that is, judgements based upon facts; they are judgements based upon convictions.

Here’s the example:

No one questions that when we buy a house and we need to get it inspected, we are wholly concerned about the opinion of the inspector. We want expert inspectors to tell us what is wrong and right with the place and present factual evidence, and we certainly don’t want an inspector who works for the seller and only has their welfare in mind, nor do we want one who doesn’t have the experience and expertise to do the inspection to begin with. No one questions this, but there are people who insist the opinion of a botanist about political affairs is valid. It is not. The botanist has beliefs one may align with—so be it, but do not pretend the information is valid from independent sources.

This leads to the most important question in all of discussions about politics, world affairs, and finances. It is also the question I tell my students is the primary concern of every professor from the time students write a paper for freshman comp to when they obtain a PhD:

Where did you get your information?

That’s it. Everything else isn’t even worth discussing without first establishing that the opinions and facts come from independent, verifiable sources who can study not only historical trends but predict pretty accurately what is likely to happen based upon that knowledge. This is what economists are best at, and so too political scientists. They are able to say, “Based upon these legal notations and previous attempts in various situations, the most likely outcome of these actions is….”

Hope and faith have nothing to do with it.

The emotion swirling through today’s atmosphere is unprecedented, and some of it isn’t because decisions being made are necessarily wrong but because they are unprecedented and seemingly dangerous as they negatively affect millions of people. Those people who are affected—all of us actually—want to know upon what basis these decisions are being made to do whatever it is being done, and who are the independent and valid experts who suggested those actions to begin with. A full disclosure of that information from researchers and experts would curb much anxiety.

No one should be out to change another person’s convictions. But if there is an argument at hand, the only way to win is by presenting facts and opinions, not beliefs, and one must maintain the belief that others will accept those facts and opinions.

Creatio ex Nihilo

~ aviewfromthiswilderness ~ Leave a comment

Note: If you are easily offended by religious thought that contradicts your oh-so-verified and perfect understanding of God and the Afterlife, move on. You probably shouldn’t be reading my work anyway.

Let’s start with this religious/philosophical concept: God created the heavens; the universe; all of it; not only this corner of the Milky Way. It is rightfully assumed by believers that God wasn’t relegated a portion of the universe or put together just this one part of the universe and then accidentally spilled the rest on the floor.

No. God created the universe. Any God you want, since all the major religions claim the same accomplishment for their deity. In Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, this is absolute. In Hinduism, it is damn close in that the universe was asleep and then came to life, but it wasn’t not there and then was as is the case in the dominant trifecta.

The after-death part: In Christianity, Islam, and most schools of Judaism, everyone will end up in heaven. The do-gooders pretty quickly; the rest of us after some pretty compromising-sounding trials. But still, the post-purgatory promise is some sort of salvation awaits us all. Eventually.

Okay.  Of the major religions, while Mormonism would be the most chill with the concept of life in other galaxies, Jews and Muslims alike have come to terms with the reality of science. Christianity is the slowest to nod to the extraterrestrials, impaling people as recently as the 16th century for suggesting the earth is not the center of the universe, but they’ve come around. Extremist evangelicals not so much but they live in their own universe anyway.

Recap: God created the heavens—all of them—and when we die those of us who chewed our food with our mouths closed get to go there.

What this means to me is there just might be life from other galaxies in heaven, unless there are a whole bunch of heavens, as in each planet or galaxy has its own heaven isp domain and the universe is indeed segregated. Otherwise, heaven just might appear closer to life in Mos Eisley Cantina than a moose lodge. But how cool would that be? No matter their origin, anyone in this galactic heaven would have had to been good by their God’s standards, so fights are not likely to break out and they’ll probably never run short on stock.

A few glitches.

Cremated people, like those spread in Russian art galleries and artists graveyards, or those dispersed in the Mediterranean Sea near childhood beaches, would either not be present, or none of us is actually “present” to begin with as if we will run into a cousin at the mall, but instead we are there in some sort of thought presence, a force if you will, a spiritual embodiment we recognize because of something eternal, like the soul. Since the earthly ashes simply ended any actual post-mortem embrace or long, tight hug with a kiss on the neck, they must not be present. Right? Not so much.  

The major (and minor actually) religions have an answer for this dilemma: The body is a vessel, nothing more, and the afterlife is a gathering of souls. This allows the dismissal of ET showing up in our heaven because most of these same belief systems assume the rest of the universe is soulless. It’s that arrogance we have, I assume, that keeps them away from Earth to begin with. Shame.

I’ve made some mistakes in my life; wrong turns, bad decisions, like everyone else. At the same time, I’ve spent the past forty-five years either studying research and verification methods or teaching it at the collegiate level. Truth has a closer relationship with science to me than it does with faith. I haunt my students with one question which I tell them is the beginning and end of all they do in college: Where did you get your information?

The bible? The Koran? The Torah?

Mom and Dad? The plumber?

Maybe this is why I spend so much time in earthbound cantinas; I want to celebrate what is, here, the tangible love of the human touch, laughter, sorrow, now, here. This much I know is true, the rest is certainly faith, and I’ve spent my life surrounded by a few people as close to sainthood as ever one could be, and they have often swayed my faith. But I get tied up sometimes in what I “want” to be true. I “want” to meet Letty again, have a hard cider and tuna bites in whatever soul-like state we find ourselves. I want to drive to Florida with Eddie, guitars in tow. I want to sing on some heavenly park bench with Dave. Of course I do. I want to sit quietly again with my dad, talking about nothing, just being nearby and again feel that wonderous safety of my father, even if–especially–in heaven.

But for now, truth impels me to seek love while I’m still using this aging vessel. We are the only known species in the universe—for if there are others, we don’t yet know—leaving us the only species anywhere who can create from nothing; creatio ex nihilo. We can create a space between us reserved for compassion, for understanding. We can create hope for those who have had less fortune, and we can use language—another creation from nothing—to tell someone, again, “I love you,” like we did before, no matter how long ago it was. We can say again, “I will miss you,” before they move on and close that door behind them.

We can say, “We will meet again someday,” and know that despite the lack of evidence, despite the need to rely entirely upon faith to say that and believe it, eventually, it is all we have left.

She led a beautiful life.

He led a holy life.

They have moved on and whatever truth there is to know they now know. But for us, they’ve decidedly moved on.

So must we.

The Words of the Profits

~ aviewfromthiswilderness ~ Leave a comment

Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters said during a board meeting that, “Every district and every classroom will have a Bible in the class and they will teach from that Bible.” Essential to his motivation is what Supt. Walters said next: “It is an historical document that needs to be taught.”

Mr. Walters is right. Everyone should read the Bible, be taught its significance in the history of humanity, the peace it provides to the multitudes, the carnage it caused on so many. Truly, it is impossible to teach about US or world history without understanding the Bible; its influence on why the early immigrants came here should be understood from the primary source, not some secondary hearsay such as biased preachers or well-meaning but uninformed, untrained Sunday School instructors. The Bible’s despicable use as a tool by slaveowners and overseers to perpetuate slavery is a solid example of how having a complete understanding of the Bible can only help students understand this country’s origins and shortcomings. If schools insist on an all-inclusive curriculum including the horrors of that history as well as the belief systems, all source materials should be read and understood, so long as those materials are not, shall we say, taught as gospel. Of course the Bible is a document of ministry and the peace that some can find in worship, but it was also a tool of dehumanization, and students should have the opportunity to know that. All of it. Yes, Mr. Walters, I agree; let’s educate these people.

But to defend your line of reasoning for its use in the curriculum, classes in World History, Sociology, Political Science, and the Humanities cannot be taught fairly unless students read the Koran and the Torah as well, and other often ignored texts detrimental to understanding who we are and how we got here. Just those three texts alone are not only part of the foundation in understanding what motivated civilizations to migrate, fight, create borders, attack enemies, defend sacred grounds, and more, they are at the root of current conflicts throughout the Middle East.

“There is absolutely no disadvantage to having more information”

Oh, and to exclude the writings of dissidents such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, would be to pretend most of European history from the early 16th century on did not occur, so make sure the acquisitions department gets ahold of these texts as well; clearly our kids need to know all the information, not just what we find convenient for our beliefs, because I promise you, others have read all those texts and are therefore better equipped. The words of Calvin and Luther, Mohammed and Buddha, redefined thinking throughout the world, challenged borders, crushed political systems, and instigated revolutions–everyone needs to know this in order to move forward. And Marx with Engels created ideas which remain at the heart of every conflict and negotiation with the Soviet Union, and then Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea. To not have students read the Communist Manifesto is to allow those we disagree with most and those with whom we will have the highest level of aggression to have the intellectual advantage, because I promise they’ve read our constitution and declaration. The Russians have studied American culture–I know, I taught it to them. So on top of the Bible, stack the Koran, the Torah, the Manifesto….oh, there’s more.  

There is absolutely no disadvantage to having more information. I want our grandchildren to have read all of these texts: the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the writing on the subway walls, the graffiti in Basque country, the samizdat documents distributed among rebellious youth in a failing Banana Republic; the Karma Sutra, the banned books in Florida, the crappy texts that become soft-porn films, those ever-popular wizard stories, and the Swifties comments on TikTok. I want them to understand the religious ramifications, the political dissidence, the social movements, and today’s fleeting fads. All of it. However, we should certainly worry who is disseminating that information. You want to start with the Bible, that’s fine. But to stop there–and please pardon this trite truism–is to send them with a knife into a gun fight. They need all of it, Mr. Walters.

Here’s a simple question: If your children are going to grow up and likely work with, negotiate with, or fight against people of different faiths as well as varying political and social mores, do you want them to have more information than their counterparts, or less?