Conservative and Liberal

Some friends of mine have been going back and forth on the issues of Iran and Afghanistan. One of them would be labeled "conservative," and the other, "liberal." In trying to pick apart their discussion and figure out where they agree and disagree, I found myself pondering the question of what "liberal" and "conservative" mean.

The web definition for "conservative" says that it means "resistant to change", and "opposed to liberal reforms" (go figure). The web definition for "liberal" is (appropriately enough) more complex, and mostly talks about favoring change; being "broad-minded"; tolerant of other views.

The practical definition of liberal and conservative is more involved than either of these, it seems. It's strange, for instance that conservatives are supposed to be resistant to change, and yet it is conservatives who are mostly behind the war in Iraq, which is all about big, sweeping "change", and was in fact in direct opposition to one of the most "conservative" regimes in the world. Liberals, on the other hand, resisted this change. So the real definition of liberal and conservative is really about the willingness to use military force, and whether or not change is being resisted or not has little to do with being conservative or liberal, and everything to do with the type of change. Liberals are resistant to one kind of change, and conservatives to another. Liberals are just as "conservative" as conservatives when it comes to things that liberals value.

The issue of civil liberties comes up, too, when discussing conservativism vs. liberalism. Defense of civil liberties is generally associated with liberal thinking. But what if the defense of civil liberties implies the use of force? Which is the stronger liberal value -- civil liberty or passifism?

Conversely, conservatives are generally associated with wanting less government -- unless, it seems, it involves, say, a woman's "right to choose." Liberals are generally opposed to the death penalty, but find ways to rationalize killing an unborn child.

The web definition of liberal includes "a person an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets." This really confuses me. Isn't it conservatives who are general anti-regulation, whereas liberals are more inclined to control economics with government?

I've even heard people describe themselves as "socially liberal and economically conservative." Or vise-versa. Somehow, I seem to know what they mean, but I'm hard-pressed to get my head around it enough to write about it...

I'll probably come back to this many times, but I believe that the more people argue, the more they agree. I explain myself by the use of a little hypothetical "thought experiment." Imagine that we disagree vehemently on some issue: I say it's "black" and you say it's "white." Assuming (big assumption) we're both interested in the truth, and that there is such a thing (even bigger assumption), then there should be little argument. The situation should quickly reveal itself as either black or white. If, however, I say it's "grayish green" and you say it's "greenish gray", well then we have something to argue about. Put "it" next to something that's a dark, forest green, and I'll probably agree with you. Put it next to something clearly miliatary gray, and I might win you to my side. Or just put them next to each other and stare for awhile; they start to look the same, or like each other, and argument ensues.

The more people have to agree about, the more they argue about what's left over. Isn't it possible that conservatives and liberals who think they're diametrically opposed to one another actually largely agree (but are unwilling to admit it)? Why IS it that we get so emotionally attached to our own points of view!?

Also, if I'm right, shouldn't we be the most concerned with the people to whom we have nothing to say? And shouldn't we figure out a way to start the conversation? If it's true that the more people argue, the more they must really agree, might it also not be true that the more they discuss, the more they WILL agree?

More on talking religion

I've been having ongoing conversations with my brother about religion for the past week or so. He has gotten very involved with his church, and his talking about it to me has brought up all kinds of issues I have with religion and the way we talk about it.

We've talked about what we mean by "God". We've talked about what religion means to us in our lives. We've talked about what it means to "worship". We've had our backs-and-forths over language, and how it's often very touchy business to even talk about religion, because different religions use different metaphors -- different language -- and it can be hard for some of us to get past that to the real message.

We even talked about how God transcends all experience, including our experience of God, and all experience transcends language, so we have very little hope of ever clearly communicating with each other about God in any meaningful way. I mentioned the classic Zen parable of the teacher pointing at the moon (the student could only stare at his finger). My brother did me one better by likening the whole thing to having to try and explain a joke to someone -- it just isn't funny any more.

I believe that, at the core, all religions are like the Zen master's finger, and that the God they all point at is all the same moon. I am a hypocrite, therefore, when I let language -- any language -- get in the way of communing with people of other faiths. So when my brother sends me the lyrics to a Christian Rock song and I can't appreciate it because it triggers my "gag reflex" (sorry again, Steve), I'm not being true to my own principles.

I will endeavor, from now on, that whenever the fog of religious language starts getting between me and the moon, I will remain quiet -- say nothing -- for as long as it takes for the fog to dissapate and I can see clearly. Even if whomever I'm speaking with doesn't see that moon (and I'll never know if they do), I will.

Tweaked about Big G

Prayer is one of the things about religion that I have faith in. Our minister is fond of saying that faith is "acting as if". From a secular, humanist point of view, it's the power of intention; focus. From a more mystical, but still non-religious standpoint, it's a way of aligning the powers of the "collective unconscious" (if you believe in that sort of thing).

Does God (look -- big G) really "care" about insignificant you? In fact, "He" does, and there's proof. I'm reading a fun book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". It's been around a while. The author interprets many of the findings of quantum and particle physics as being more and more in line with philosophies and beliefs of religions and traditions from the east and the west, throughout history. For instance, at the level of the sub-atomic, it's impossible to observe a system without affecting it. (Remember the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?) In fact, there IS no objective reality "out there." Reality, according to modern physics, depends on what you observe. All subatomic particles are, in fact, mathematically modeled by probability functions which only manifest in real "things" if you observe them and pin down some of their characteristics (and give up on pinning down the rest). If there's no one there to hear it, the tree in the forest would not only not make a sound, it wouldn't even fall.

So you see, according to the most modern science, there is no reality without us. Reality is within us -- intimately connected to us. God not only cares about "insignificant us", but DEPENDS on us. Put another way, reality isn't made up of things -- it's made up of our relationship with things. If I were smarter, I could quote scriptures from every major tradition that would say this in their language. You say "it's not a science based on earthly proof -- it's a religion based on faith." In fact, it IS based on earthly proof -- which is, at the core, identical to "faith". It IS your imagination -- that's all there is.

Please rent "What the Bleep Do We Know". You might be inspired.

I get tweaked with religion when it is used to divide people rather than unite them. It saddens me to observe that, throughout history, most people use religion to set themselves apart from others rather than embrace them (unconverted). The people who really "get it" don't do that -- they see past that trap. That's the devil in disquise.

With most people, I get tweaked even with the language, because I don't trust (there's that "faith" word again) that they mean anything similar to what I do. "He" is too paternal, and brings with it all the garbage visions of some human-like "being" sitting "up there" somewhere with a "plan" for my life. Man, I have to stretch my metaphors a long way to make it match that. Some of the people in our church use "She" -- goddess types. Whatever -- similar problems. "It" doesn't work, either -- too impersonal. So, as I would expect, God is beyond language, and we have to settle on something. I guess most of the time I use "it" (or maybe "It"), despite those problems.

I get tweaked when people quote scripture to me. Partially because of the language, and partially because it usually carries a tone of "thou shalt" something or other, which I find troubling. The Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". I think, for most (undeducated, unthinking) people, this puts the responsibility outside us. Some being out there tells us what to do, and forgives us if we mess up. I prefer, for instance, the Buddhist version of this, which is more like "I voluntarily choose to abstain from killing." which puts it all back on ourselves again.

I get tweaked when religion is used to justify things that are wrong. It happens all the time. Terrorists, crusades, invasions, torture, everyday manipulations and power grubbing...

I get tweaked with the word "worship". I worship "God" in the same sense as I worship my children, or that magnificent cockroach the other day, or a really great math problem. To me, "worship" means to "stand in awe of" or "to recognize the greatness and beauty of", or something like that. Too often, I hear people use the word "worship" to mean something more like "stop thinking and subjugate onesself to". The "stop thinking" part I have a problem with. And by "thinking" I include "feeling/praying/searching", too.

I get tweaked when religion is used as a way of NOT thinking. The Bible is SO often misquoted, or quoted out of context, or selectively quoted, or interpreted just so... Somebody quotes scripture to me and I find myself reeling in an attempt to reconcile what each of us means.

I get tweaked when children -- especially children -- are brought up to use religion as an instrument of fear. Happens a lot around here.

One day, I expect a conversation with a student. The short version might go something like this...
- "Mr. Franke, you go to that Universalist church, right? Do you believe in God?"
- I say "yes, though not everyone at my church does."
- "The same God I believe in?"
- "I believe so, yes. Though probably not the same way you do."
- "It's not that complicated, Mr. Franke. Do you believe in the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?"
- "Not the way you do, I'm sure."
- "Aren't you a Christian?"
- "What do you think?"
- "Aren't you afraid of going to hell?"
- "I don't believe in a hell outside of the kind we create for ourselves here on earth. So, no."
- "What about the Bible?"
- "What about it?"
- "Do you believe in the Bible?"
- "The Bible is a book. It's not something to believe in or not."
- "Mr. Franke, I'll pray for you."
- "Thank you. And I for you."

I did have a student once tell me, during a tangential discussion I can't remember: "Mr. Franke, you're asking us to question our beliefs!" Knowing where this could lead and how much trouble it could get me into, I approached carefully (as the class waited in rare, hushed silence). I said "Let's be clear -- I'm not teaching religion, Rhonda. I know you a little bit, so I think I can say that I'm not asking you to go against your faith in any way that I can imagine. But I'm your teacher, so it's my job to encourage you to think. Thinking implies questioning what you think you know, and it's often hard to tell where 'knowing' ends and 'believing' picks up. So do I ask you to question your beliefs? Yes. It's my job. If your beliefs don't hold up, then you need to re-evaluate. That's what we do in here. Do you believe that "pi = circumference / diameter"?

Evolution vs "Intelligent Design"

I just got done reading the August 15 issue of Time magazine, entitled "Evolution Wars." Then I fired of a request to justfacts.com to ask them to address this topic. The whole thing puzzles me to no end.

So the two sides of the issue line up as follows: One side says that Darwin's theory of evolution is the only science on the matter of where we came from, and the other side says that there's much more to it. There's lots written about the debate, and the article I just quoted sums it up better than I can. To me, however, there are two things that are usually not addressed during the debate, and weren't in this article, either. This is my attempt at shining a light on them.

First, a disclaimer: When I refer to the "one side" of the story, I'm not talking about the creationists. These are people who do not have science at heart at all. They are religious fanatics. Any modern thinking person who believes that the earth was created in seven literal days -- or anything even close to that -- just because a book says so, is someone with whom I can't have an intelligent conversation. But now, on with it...

The "It's just a theory" theory...

This is the rallying cry of many of the critics of Darwin's theory of evolution. Even the mandatory statement - a disclaimer for evolution in the classroom - that is now being read in public schools in Pennsylvania, says that "...Darwin's theory is a theory, [and] it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered." Somehow, this is meant to discredit it. It does -- but only in the eyes of its critics and of the uneducated.

A theory is ALWAYS "just a theory." All of science is based on "theories" -- even if we call them "laws." Newton's "laws" were just theories, constantly tested, and only recently debunked (by quantum physics -- more theories). Gravity is a theory. All of psychology, medicine, engineering -- it's all based on theories. If someone comes up with evidence to contradict them, then we have to rethink them. That's how science works. Evolution is a theory, too. According to everything I've read (just a theory -- prove me wrong), eveolution is the ONLY theory to explain our origins that actually agrees with experience -- that is, with all known evidence. That is, there IS NO DEBATE within scientific communities on the subject. The TIME article confirms it once again. None. There is no other scientific theory, period. "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory -- it's just a way of shifting the discussion.

If you say "it's just a theory" as a way of expressing criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution, you do nothing to help your case. You only show your ignorance.

And now, on the arrogance of claiming "Intelligent Design"...

I've gotta hand it to the folks who came up with the term "intelligent design". Probably the same right-wing folks who coined terms like "pro life" and "collateral damage". They really do have a knack for it. The problem with the term "Intelligent Design", as well as the problem with the whole school of thought, is that it is the height of arrogance to think that for something to be "intelligent", it has to be "intelligible" to us. Furthermore, it is the height of ignorance to think that, for instance, a series of random mutations does not follow a set grand laws that might not
be a form of "intelligence" in themselves. Would an ant look at us and say "now there's an intelligent creature"? I think not. That's because we are not intelligent in any way that the ant can comprehend. In fact, we're pretty stupid in some of the ways it can comprehend. I believe that whatever your concept of God (if you have one), the difference between an ant and a human is infinitely smaller than the difference between a human and God.

The way I see it, the very fact that we can't recognize something as intelligence as we know it tends to strengthen arguments for the presence of God. So, I ask, what are the "intelligent design" folks so worried about?

Show me something that seems preposterous, and I'll show you evidence of God.

"The Theory of Intelligent Design" -- indeed!

Religion and me

I'm reading a book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", by Gary Zukav. I love this book.
Here's a quote (page 97):

"Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of western religion. Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of western science. In other words, religion has become a matter of the heart and science has become a matter of the mind. This regrettable state of affairs does not reflect the fact that, physiologically, one cannot exist without the other. Everybody needs both. Mind and hear are only different aspects of us."

I was raised Lutheran, and not very devoutly so. My parents forced me to go to Sunday school and such things throughout my childhood. I hated it. My family moved from Virginia to Wisconsin right in the middle of my confirmation classes. So I was left with the prospect of, if I wanted to be confirmed (which amounts to becoming an adult member of the church), I would have to complete the classes on my own, just me and the pastor at our new church. Strangely enough, I took this on readily. I still don't know why. In retrospect, perhaps it was as a challenge -- one that I knew I would "win."

So I walked myself to confirmation class for some time. A one-on-one with the pastor. At the end of it (I don't remember how many weeks I did this), I remember asking the pastor some basic questions and being dissatisfied with the answers. I don't remember the questions, nor the answers. I only remember being dissatisfied. Also not surprised.

So I was confirmed. Shortly thereafter (like, the next week), I remember having a conversation with my parents during which I very confidently told them that I wouldn't be going to church any more. My dad was somewhat surprised, but I countered with his very words: "once you're old enough, you can make your own decisions." Confirmation was clearly "old enough", and my dastardly plan seemed to be right on track. He pressed me a little, and I challenged him with asking him whether he even knew what an "Apostolic Church" was. When he said that he didn't, and that it didn't matter, I pointed out that it was part of the Nicene creed, during which he professed what he believed in every week in church. It was just an example of the hypocrisy that I could no longer swallow.

Where was I going with this?....

Oh yeah. So anyway, back at this tender age of about 16, I remember coming to the realization, and telling my pastor about it, that religion claimed to BE the Truth, and science claimed to SEEK the Truth. So ultimately, shouldn't they eventually arrive at the same place? This got into a discussion about how religion is somewhat flexible, and science sometimes has an agenda, and that this obfuscates the process. Still, my point remained well made, whatever it was.

Now, in this passage in "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", I find myself vindicated.

...

One more thing about religion. I'm a Unitarian Universalist. My wife has been reading a book called "Under the Banner of Heaven", which is about Mormon Fundamentalism. Our conversations about the two vastly different books we're reading, and how they overlap to an amazing degree, got me thinking about what Unitarian Universalist fundamentalism would look like. Funny, in fact, was the realization that a "Fundamentalist Unitarian Universalist" would be called an FUU for short, and that this pretty much answered my question.

Then I realized that sometimes when I'm feeling prickly and I comment to people that I, personally, "don't so much worship god as study it", I'm actually BEING an FUU. Heh.

Change of Venue

I started this blog as a personal diary. For the first few days, all I did was write about my trials and tribulations with money. So I decided to create a blog around that subject. It's called Dollar Scholar -- see the link in the sidebar, or my profile, for that.