Faith in the-objective-truth; 2005 column

Humankind evolves toward appreciating the-objective-truth[1]

                                                                                      

            The entity “We the People of the United States,”[2] so far bemused by political regimes, expresses doubt in freedom of thought. The 1791 amended US Constitution dictates faith and values and also infuses religion into governance. We the people may remedy this tyranny by amending the amended Constitution. Appreciation of the-objective-truth[3] and statutory justice may trump respect for religion. [4]

            I think there is confusion over three governances: law, religion, and integrity.  Most people are lawful and humble toward the-objective-truth, but many people are bemused over religion. Respect for the-objective-truth would liberate the people.

The people, privately holding diverse religious or metaphysical hopes, could civically unite under the US Constitution and its consequential details—observe the law even when proposing to amend it for justice.

People expect “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Justice empowers liberty. For example, most travelers choose justice at traffic signals. Accomplishment or contribution facilitates happiness. Most people act responsibly, at least to avoid being wards of other people, a pain that was observed after Katrina.

Most people just want to live privately and in peace and self-govern their needs:  food, shelter, clothing, physical health, mental health, risk exposure, and accomplishments. They expect no interference from other people.

From dependent infant to mature adult, primary focus evolves from learning to performance. People learn or acquire inspiration, and perhaps only death ends self-discovery.

            Freedom of thought, often taken for granted, seems an enigma. People who think not, forego freedom; people who constantly labor, think little; unfocused people enslave themselves; indoctrinated people cannot perceive ideas that would be new to them; hateful people cannot learn. No one can escape uncertainty; therefore, intellectual self-reliance seems essential.

            The collective humans—humankind--defends and labors to understand the-objective-truth, using processes such as the following:

·         Perceive a phenomenon or the-objective-truth.

·         Propose hypotheses to explain the perception.

·         Design tests of the hypotheses.

·         Perform the tests and process the data.

·         Evaluate the results and draw conclusions.

Possible results include the following:  the perception was false; all hypotheses failed (yet the perception may remain, unexplained); a theory emerged; or the evidence indicated a discovery or the-objective-truth.

Borrowing Einstein’s 1941[5] words, understanding “can only be created . . . with the aspiration toward truth [and] the faith . . . that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational.” Humankind seems to respect the-objective-truth and remain open to improved measurements or new discovery. For example, despite preponderant evidence, evolution remains a theory.[6] However, religion, the practice of adopting an idea/belief as the-objective-truth, stops at the second step in the above process. Thus, creationism, lacking evidence beyond human existence, is a hypothesis.

With only an idea—imagination--people can create hypotheses/beliefs. For example, thinkers such as Aristotle hypothesized that a soul determines the character of a human. Some religions hypothesize that saving the soul can defeat death, provided their doctrine is practiced. Perhaps there’s nothing beyond what the individual accomplished during life after his or her body, mind, and person stop functioning.

Practicing hypotheses can burden life and alienate the-objective-truth. Therefore, no one should influence another person’s attention to the soul or afterlife expectations.

On faith, believers trust religion:  on faith, some non-believers respect the-objective-truth. Believers have the right to believe religion, provided they respect the rights of people who respect the-objective-truth. Civic people do not impose on other people what just people do not want to experience.

Many people perceive everyone wants religion. However, some people are inspired without religion. They hold life, what they have, above soul, a construct that may not exist. For example, I ended my Protestantism to accept my faith in the-objective-truth. I became a man of faith, trusting the-objective-truth:  not a man of belief, trusting religion. Fifteen years later, I wish studying and practicing virtue had been my family tradition and do not fear afterdeath. I would not influence anyone to so accept the-objective-truth-- to change his or her religion—because I do not know the-objective-truth; yet I do celebrate, promote, and practice respect for the-objective-truth. I accept no substitutes for the-objective-truth. When I do not know the-objective-truth, I establish an opinion that is consistent with what has been discovered.

The Constitution anticipated revisions for discovered justice. Thus, amendments outlawed slavery, granted women suffrage, and recognized civil rights. However, a great tyranny remains:  religion is held above the-objective-truth. Borrowing Abraham Lincoln’s words about slavery, religion “deprives [America’s] republican example of its just influence.” Religion blocks America’s path to integrity.

Historically, the majority of US elected officials unjustly holds piety essential to good governance and unconstitutionally imposes religion on citizens. For example, the Congress opens meetings with prayer. By allowing elected officials to advocate “God,” We the People of the United States lead innocent, capable citizens to expect help from God, that diverse construct that magically tolerates suffering. Without religious input from elected officials, such citizens might take action and avoid disaster. Therefore, We the People of the United States, who may rightfully be religious or not, cannot justly involve religion in government.

Hopefully, fellow citizens who support We the People of the United States evolve toward the-objective-truth. Thus, hopefully the U.S. Constitution will someday express neither piety nor responsibility for souls, a human, constructed mystery.

Just governance requires leaders who have faith in the-objective-truth--leaders who subordinate heartfelt religious comforts and responsibly execute due process of law. As long as we fail to elect such leaders, accountability, which always falls on us, will continue to be painful.

Note:  this writing and the ideas are copyrighted to preserve my opportunity to use them in future writing; Phillip R. Beaver, September 27, 2018. I encourage sharing the ideas herein and would love to receive comments on them at phillip@beaver.brcoxmail.com, at 225-766-7365, or at 1624 Leycester Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808.

---

[1] This adapted article with original title “Humankind evolves toward trusting truth,” was published in The Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, November 5, 2005. This is a revision for 2018.

[2] The people and the systems for maintaining the law. “We the People of the United States” is defined in the Preamble to the US Constitution.

[3] I hyphenate the-objective-truth to remind myself and readers that the-objective-truth cannot be modified, including the-objective-truth that is unknown. Inserting, for example, “ultimate” to posit “the ultimate truth,” is only self deception. A person respects the-objective-truth by not trying to adopt substitutes.

[4] Religion is the practice of making assumptions about heartfelt concerns then creating dogma based on the assumptions then attempting to live according to the dogma.

[5] See text inside the online post at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.

[6] In 2016, Einstein’s general theory of relativity was confirmed as a law of physics (the object rather than the study, or “science”). See online at https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211.

Same-sex unions; 2004 essay

052604

"Same-sex couples and marriage," Phil Beaver, Saturday, Baton Rouge, LA, April 3, 2004.

            The Advocate, by publishing Thomas Sowell's "Confused thinking backs gay marriage," March 15, defended the American society and republic and offered help for homosexuals.

            Because homosexuality terminates lineage, society shouldn't approve it. Nevertheless, same-sex couples should be accommodated, without compromising society's responsibility to encourage people to achieve their fullest potentials.

            Webster's unabridged dictionary (1994) defines marriage, "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife." Also, "husband" means, "a married man, especially considered in relation to his wife," and "wife" means, "a woman joined in marriage to a man." Since same-sex couples aren't man and woman, backing "same-sex marriage" would make "rhetoric more important than reality" (Sowell).

            For same-sex couples, the claim "man and woman" shuns reality; "husband and wife" shuns reality; "spouse" shuns reality; "father and mother" shuns reality. Applying such terms to same-sex couples is as unreal as asserting they defy gravity--fly like birds or drift like balloons. More pertinently, it's like claiming same-sex couples beget children. Not certifying same-sex marriage is not secondary civil classification; it's reality recognition.

            Society should encourage people to experience life to its fullest. Begetting children, challenging as that responsibility is, should not be denied anyone with the desire and means. Someone who encourages a person to be homosexual diminishes their potential fulfillment.

            Sowell didn't cite religion, and I don't either but express a [civic] view of Genesis. Abraham, tempted to sacrifice his son, illustrates that the coming generation with fresh ideas and creativity encourages the reluctant, older generation to make needed, revolutionary changes they imagined--to progress.

            Abraham left his homeland, Ur, with family and servants to create a new life without human sacrifices after annual harvest. His father, Terah, supported the idea and also went but died on the way. Later, as the head of the tribe, suffering huge financial and human losses in Canaan, Abraham feared he must have been wrong and decided to sacrifice his son.

            Tied to an altar made of kindling and under the knife Abraham raised for the kill, the frantic son screamed, "Dad, this will not be a sacrifice; it will be murder! You are correct:  human sacrifice is wrong." Wisely, Abraham listened to his son.  A servant's son wouldn't have known the background and how to appeal to Abraham.

            Often, lessons from children enrich parents' lives. No one should be encouraged to accept a lifestyle that prevents such enrichment. Thus, I think a society that encourages people to be homosexual is wrong.

            Nevertheless, some people, for private reasons, want to form same-sex unions. I think society should not burden them and provide adequate same-sex laws without compromising marriage.

Physics-based ethics: 17 yr quest rev

     Today, August 26, 2015, I had the pleasure of commenting on John Singleton’s letter to the editor, online at theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/13233051-123/letters-donald-trumps-words-advocating, captioned, “Donald Trump’s words advocating practical repentance may please God more than Christian inaction."

  

I commented as follows:

     John Singleton is a Louisiana treasure. For decades he has been sharing his “authentic Christianity.” Thank you Mr. Singleton.

     He warms my heart and touches memory with, “We’ve been sold a bill of goods that allows us to harm others and then simply dismiss ourselves,” [with ‘there but for grace of my god go I.]’”

     It gives me warm pleasure to paraphrase and quote his letter published on September 25, 1998: If we want to be Christians, we must reform our human emotions to the solid Christian directives rather than “bend, mold and shape the Scriptures to fit our shabby human form.” It seems some Christians do this and Singleton is not the only one I know.

     Also, I am grateful to the Advocate for enrichment through unheard dialogue with writers like John Singleton.

 

Old letters

 

     I found Singleton's old letter in my files along with my response. Back then, I was searching for the expressions “physics-based ethics” and "civic morality based on physics." Only 1941's Einstein and the discussions at EBRP libraries over the past eighteen months could have brought “physics” out, but the need for it has always been obvious; not only to me but to the countless classical liberal writers who have sought it during 2500 years. Let's look for even better expressions without delay in taking advantage of what we have.

     My letter published on October 12, 1998, with kind editorial corrections by Bill Bankston and caption “Give us law, not Bible controversy” supports physics-based ethics for civic morality. John Singleton exemplifies why in civic morality a no-harm person’s religious morality is not questioned for them. Their religion is not ours, but it is theirs.

     See if you agree that 1) useful ideas are locked in mind tunnels (especially imposed by Adam-Smithian or Edmund-Burkean propriety--that says in essence this very land holds inhabitants to tradition) and 2) candid dialogue is what a civic people need; for example, my lonely struggle to discover both physics-based ethics (and, for me only, faith in the objective truth of which most is undiscovered and some is understood) is clarified by library discussions. "Candid dialogue" bluntly allows no lying in any form including stonewalling or wimping in confrontation with a potential attacker. My fascination, beginning in 2011, with Albert Einstein’s 1941 speech was not enough to unlock the idea of civic morality based on a physics-based system. Here are the seventeen year old expressions unlocked by blunt library-debate:

     John Singleton (letter of September 25, 1998) seems to blame America for unspecified conflicts in his Christianity versus citizenship quandary.  After similar struggles, I accept that the Bible has shortcomings and propose American statesmanship with faith in the Creation.

     Could it be that self-doubt and Bible study distract people, like me, from virtuous living and the law?  If so, it seems appropriate to question some Christian fundamentals.  Consider, for examples, original sin and the conversion of unbelievers.

     Why extend the allegorical "original sin" to infants, when parents could trust that the Creator intends their perfection?  How can there be sin from procreation, when during virtuous procreation husband and wife are prepared and will responsibly rear and love any child that is conceived?  Also, doesn't the Creator provide children opportunities to adopt virtuous living?  I am not asking why institutions promote dogmatic theologies.  I am asking, why teach children the negatives of original sin and fallibility when parents, by example, can teach children the great pleasure:  responsible, confident, virtuous and potentially perfect living.

     Typically, people are born with appetites.  I think the Creator intends them to control the appetites.  Some families control their lives by observing Laws.  (By "Laws" I mean the Laws of physics, chemistry, nature, life and spirit - not just the 10 commandments.)  Doesn't the simple practice of virtue satisfy every intention of the Creator?  "Virtue" means control of appetites so that your possible contributions to the overall good become reality.

     Christianity commissions conversion of non-believers.  Aren't peaceful, responsible neighbors entitled to their traditions and their neighbor's respect?  Long ago, I proposed converting unbelievers, typically claiming the Bible as my authority.  However, I realized that my "authority" was willful and I gave up that aggressive posture.

     Like John, I struggle with Christian ideals versus American Laws.  I favor Laws.  Could it be that religion is substantially responsible for many of society's problems?  Do some religious people master their Bible, while waiting for the Lord to correct their behavior?  Why do so many Christian prayers assign to God the responsibility for the supplicant's virtue?  I wish my family tradition was virtue, not the Christianity I learned.

     The people who teach religion can shirk responsibility for the results.  They can wait eternally for fulfillment of their beliefs.  However, governments, such as America's constitutional republic, must deal with peoples' current behaviors and the consequences thereof.  Christianity could help by focusing on virtuous living, even by unbelievers, instead of assigning the Creator the responsibility to heal allegorical sin and current sin.  When it comes to public policy, give us the United States Constitution.  Give us continuously improved Laws, not Bible controversies.

Now I mimic my old letter to express 2015 thoughts brought out by Einstein and the candid library discussions:

     John Singleton (letter of September 25, 1998) kindly examines his Christianity respecting his citizenship.  I share his tacit claim that the Bible and the law must not diminish a person’s goodness.

     Perhaps traditional interpretations of the Bible should be examined in light of the achievable combination no-harm personal liberty and domestic goodwill among a civic people.  Consider, for examples, two doctrine: original sin and conversion of non-Christians.

     It seems obvious that bond-building should precede procreation. That order of learning to understand and living seems compatible with perfection unto posterity.  Procreation cannot err when bonded, love-making husband and wife are prepared for parenthood and will responsibly rear and love any child they conceive. Also, children seem prone to adopt virtuous living if they have good examples and coaching. Teaching that they were born in sin seems counter-productive—questionable--objectionable; from a civic viewpoint.

     Humans, like all animals, have appetites, but the human animal also has the highest longing for self-control.  Understanding physics and how to benefit is the best basis for establishing personal control and civic ethics. For example, if a person habitually overeats, they gain weight, harm their health, and may become a civic burden--even a threat. A person who is promiscuous should not expect to commit to fidelity let alone expect dependability.

     Physics is not just a study, it is energy, mass, and space-time from which everything emerges. From physics emerges chemistry, nature, life, and inspiration. By cultivating ethics--understanding how to benefit from physics--and behaving accordingly, possible contributions to personal liberty and domestic goodwill become reality. Perfection of the person rather than a phantasm becomes possible, and psychological maturity may be reachable.

     Second, Christianity erroneously commissions conversion of non-Christians.  In domestic goodwill, no-harm neighbors are entitled to personal traditions and cultures.  Long ago, I proposed converting unbelievers, typically claiming the Bible as my authority.  With help—the faces of offended neighbors, I realized that my "authority" was willful and gave up that aggressive practice. I have no religious authority to justify my decision not to proselytize. Based on civic morality, I reject any religious doctrine that requires believers to question another no-harm inhabitant’s inspiration, motivation, and no-harm culture. There's no more brutal psychological attack against a no-harm person.

     Like John Singleton, I struggle with Christian ideals and American laws, but I favor civic authority: physics-based ethics. I wish my family tradition was personal liberty and domestic goodwill, not the Christianity and Americanism I learned despite my parents' noble efforts. However, Singleton’s Christianity seems compatible with civic morality, as evidenced by his consideration of Donald Trump's noble statement. (Singleton's 2015 letter.)

     Religious institutions may wait eternally for fulfillment of their beliefs. However, governments, such as America's constitutional republic, must deal with peoples' current needs, behaviors and any civic consequences.  Christianity could help by focusing on virtuous living, even by unbelievers, instead of assigning to their creator the responsibility to heal allegorical sin and current sin. Within "freedom of Christian religion" there's division--alienation: even the creator changes from church to church. Some churches do react to physics, but are too slow, often by hundreds of years.   

     When it comes to public policy, people, give us the preamble to the constitution for the USA, which holds a civic people responsible for civic morality.  American people, give us morality and laws a civic people continuously improve so as to benefit from physics. Meanwhile, appreciate the personal pursuits of spiritual liberty by civic people like John Singleton.

Copyright©2015 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 September 1, 2015