Posted by
Nick Thompson on
Sep 22, 2012; 3:40am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Faith-tp7580633p7580662.html
Sarbajit,
One of the great pleasures of FRIAM has been coming to know you over the
last several months.
Thanks for your thoughts, here. You took mine in an entirely unexpected
direction.
All the best,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Faith
Nick
I'm glad you brought up a) Laws b) Protestant ideas in the context of faith.
AND
That you are still trying to define your beliefs..
I claim with some degree of certainty that at least 90% of the worlds
religions don't set down precisely and completely their "Laws" in the form
of "Rules"/ Beliefs ... BECAUSE it does not suit their establishments and
clergy to do so.
If The 10 Commandments was all that there is to Christianity there would
there be fewer disputes and no organised church.
I am very happy to say that my own religion has gone against the grain and
done so, and very precisely too at various points of time. Its pertinent to
mention that my religion is a "Protestant" (in the sense of reformist) one
and we have done away with priests, churches and all the organisational
claptrap.
The first time we did so was by a legally registered trust deed drafted by
10 of the best legal brains in India at the time (all of whom were members
of the faith) on January 8, 1830. It was a most remarkable document for its
time and is so even today. This secular document was the basis for my
country's "Tea Party" which allowed us to begin to boot out our
British:colonisers (who were playing religion centric divide and rule
politics to exploit us) eventually.
Today our Beliefs are very few
http://brahmo.org/brahmo-prime-principles.htmland the Rules of the faith are crisp and precise (to Easterners at least)
http://brahmo.org/brahmo-articles-faith.htmlWe believe (like Al Qaeda or Chairman Mao) that an army which travels
lightly (and simply) and can blend among the people travels furthest and
fastest. Our annual adherent growth is hugely positive y-o-y despite that we
don't proselytize or convert.
Our Rules are very puzzling to Westerners who hear them. They are surprised
to hear that our first rule is "Brahmos embrace righteousness as the only
way of life". "Righteousness" apparently has a negative connotation in the
West. Whereas to us, it conveys something entirely different we call
"Dharma" referring to the "power/force" behind the natural balancing fields
of "positive" and "negative" (aka. entropy and non-entropy) streams which
propel this universe. Think Yoda instructing young Master Luke the first
time.
Less tolerant / trusting / evolved faiths however would setup a host of
illogical rules like Thou shall not steal / kill / curse/ smoke / drink /
covet thy neighbour's camel / wife etc. to the point of reductionism.
Hope this helps you to define / understand your faith's beliefs a little
better.
Sarbajit
On 9/20/12, Nicholas Thompson <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, it would be nice to answer that action on our personal moral
> principles should cease, when it breaks the law.
>
> The trouble is, there are laws and there are laws.
>
> The Protestant idea that each of us has a direct and personal
> obligation to the law, no matter what a duly appointed law enforcement
> officer may tell us, makes thinking about these issues VERY
> complicated. Back in the sixties we were taught that we might be
> obligated to "throw our bodies" on the machine to stop the vietnam
> war. I am not sure to what higher law we appealed in those days but I
> vaguely remember that it had to do with the Nuremburg trials. I
> belief that in military law a soldier is obligated to DISOBEY a law
> that is illegal? Whether the soldier gets a commendation for
> disobedience or shot for it depends, in this case, on whether a
> military judge, in the peace and quiet of a courtroom, comes to agree
> with the decision of the soldier, which may have been made in a
> split-second during the chaos of a battle. We have to have a way of
thinking about this that rules in civil disobedience but rules OUT stalking
abortion providers.
>
> Be careful to take note of how I am reasoning here. I am reasoning
> backwards from my own actions to some principle that would justify them.
> Pretty shoddy, as a form of reasoning, but, if one believes that
> beliefs just are those principles implied by one's actions, then what
> I am saying here makes more sense. I am trying to discover what my
> beliefs ARE, not trying to justify them. The pragmatist Justice,
> Oliver Wendel Holmes, famously said that Justice is what judges do [in
> the long run, if they think carefully and well about precedent and the
> facts of each individual case].
> On this account, our beliefs get justified by their long term success.
By
> "long term" I mean generations and generations and by "our" I mean the
> species. This is the pragmatist doctrine of truth.
>
> I think the reason that people live about 60 years beyond youth is
> that it takes about that long for the high=minded protestations of
> one's youth to come home to roost. I cannot escape the feeling that
> in some strange sense I am personally responsible for the Tea Party.
> And bombing abortion clinics. But this s no doubt liberal guilt gone
> mad. I guess we got THAT from the quakers?
>
> Nick
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org