The rewrite of the Principles and Purposes has launched anew the complaints that some UUs treat the PPs as if they were a creed. Of course they do; the PPs are a creed. The Unitarian Universalist faith is not, never has been, and cannot be a "creedless religion"; it is disingenuous to claim that it is. Or, for that matter, that a creedless religion can exist at all.
What is a creed? The dictionary on my desk says, "a set of fundamental beliefs ; also : a guiding principle". The PPs fit both halves of that definition; they are beliefs, not facts. We acknowledge that with our language; one doesn't covenant or affirm a fact, one recognizes or becomes aware of it. I don't believe, covenant, or honor that the Sun rises in the morning; I recognize the fact that it does. That being the case, I do not feel the need to add that the Sun rises to my credo. Nor do I fellowship for the purpose of recognizing known facts.
We covenant to honor and uphold concepts such as "dignity and worth" and "right of conscience" precisely because they are not provable facts. We believe that these behaviors will bring the greatest good to the greatest number; we cannot prove them. For that matter, that the greater good should be sought by the individual is an unprovable belief. Even the subordinate clauses and sentences used to explain the beliefs are themselves beliefs.
I know many UUs are allergic the the very words "belief" and "creed", and I can imagine why; they've been hurt by too-rigid creeds in the churches of their youth. Others say they are rationalists; they deal only in facts. But religions deal in truths, not facts. Truths are shared beliefs about the meaning of the facts; the fact itself simply is. If we share a list of such beliefs, they are a creed. If we don't, why do we fellowship at all? Take care in drawing up such a document, yes. Make it as inclusive as possible, certainly. Or drop it entirely if we cannot agree. But to have a creed and pretend it is not one is simply dishonest. And yes, that is a belief.
4 comments:
As you probably know I could have, and effectively have. . . written your first paragraph here Joel. Many times over in fact. Here is my latest (re)iteration of it. I have repeatedly reminded U*Us of the standard dictionary definitions of the word 'creed'. Unfortunately U*Us have a very bad 1984ish habit of redefining the generally understood meaning of words. I like to call it U*Uspeak. . .
You really went off the rails in your last paragraph though.
"Truths are shared beliefs about the meaning of the facts; the fact itself simply is."
Looks like you are taking us back to '1984' again Joel. . .
Truths are by no means "shared beliefs about the meaning of the facts." Truths are "the facts" not "beliefs about (their) meaning." Indeed all bona fide truths should be provable facts, or they are not really truths. What is Truth? Let's see what the dictionary has to say.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
The fact of the matter Joel is that a good many untruths, falsehoods, lies, and delusions etc. are "shared beliefs about the meaning of the facts."
And that my friend is the Truth. . .
Of course I can well understand how a U*U might believe that "Truths are shared beliefs about the meaning of the facts." Let's see now, according to U*U shared beliefs about the meaning of the facts regarding yours truly. It is a "truth" that I am psychotic or otherwise seriously mentally ill, Creation Day is a cult, Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry is "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership", I am a "hateful whack job" who Rev. Diane Rollert and other like-minded paranoid U*Us have "reasonable grounds to believe" will do a Jim Adkisson on the Unitarian Church of Montreal etc. etc. ad nauseum. Ah yes U*Us are such sticklers for the Truth. . .
God forbid that U*Us should ever let the facts get in the way of U*U "Truth". . .
Here's another dictionary definition:
1 aarchaic : fidelity , constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true (truths of thermodynamics) c: the body of true statements and propositions
3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality bchiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard
4capitalized Christian Science : god
— in truth : in accordance with fact : actually
If you'll notice, Merriam Webster includes my definition, with such phrases as "transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality". The word "truth" is used for judgements. Example: fact, Mr X straps a bomb to himself and blows up a bus full of people. Is he a criminal or a freedom fighter? You have the "facts" in front of you- what is the truth? A man is convicted of treason and crucified. Is he a curageous martyr who tried to set an example for the world, or a criminal and a fool who put himself in the way of the Roman fist? What is the truth? If "fact" and "truth" are identical, why did Pilate ask "What is truth?"- he knew what the facts were. Are slaves people or property? fact is, the slaveowner had a bill of sale and legal title- what was the truth? Fact is a fetus has from conception a unique DNA, distinct from the mother; is it a human being, deserving the Constitutional protections guaranteed to all people? What is the truth here? Are you starting to grasp the difference between "fact" and "truth" yet?
Nope.
The truth here is that your overly simplistic questions, designed to favor your facile argument, fail to demonstrate any significant difference between truth and fact.
:Example: fact, Mr X straps a bomb to himself and blows up a bus full of people. Is he a criminal or a freedom fighter? You have the "facts" in front of you- what is the truth?
The fact of the matter aka the truth is that you have only presented the most minimal facts here in order to support your simplistic argument that facts and truth are not the same thing. One would need to know a lot more about Mr. X and who was in the bus before it could be determined if he was a criminal or a freedom fighter or both for that matter. . . That is why courts of law ostensibly seek the *whole truth* before rendering a judgment as to whether or not someone is a criminal Joel. Try again.
:A man is convicted of treason and crucified. Is he a curageous (sic) martyr who tried to set an example for the world, or a criminal and a fool who put himself in the way of the Roman fist? What is the truth?
Quite possibly the latter of those two options if you take certain parts of the Bible as being truthful accounts of certain facts of Jesus' life. . . In fact both of those two scenarios can be considered to be factual and true Joel. They are not mutually exclusive by any means. Who is to say that any courageous martyr who tries to set an example for the world cannot also be a criminal and a fool?
Starting to grasp the fact that "fact" and "truth" are very much the same thing Joel? It is when "truth" starts losing solid foundation in fact that it is no longer bona fide truth. I have already pointed out how "shared beliefs about the meaning of the facts" are often anything but the truth, and can even be outright lies and delusions, but I can provide more examples if you would like.
:Are slaves people or property? fact is, the slaveowner had a bill of sale and legal title- what was the truth?
The fact of the matter, aka the truth, is that slaves definitely are people and, if slavery is legal within the territory where the slaveowners who have a bill of sale and legal title to them reside, they are unfortunately legal property within that context. Whether or not slavery should be legal is another question. If international law makes slavery illegal then, from the perspective of those nations who honor and uphold this law, slaves cannot legally be property, but that does not change the fact that they are legally property within those countries that flaunt the international law that bans owning slaves. BTW I am making this argument on the basis of what you have presented here, so please don't try to change your "facts" after the fact.
:If "fact" and "truth" are identical, why did Pilate ask "What is truth?"- he knew what the facts were.
Did he really Joel? Did Pontius Pilate really know what *all* of the facts were? Did he know the the proverbial "whole truth"? I think not. . . Certainly Biblical accounts of Jesus' trial don't show much effort on Pontius Pilate's part to try to determine the whole truth about whether or not Jesus was guilty of treason or was otherwise a criminal. N'est-ce pas? His alleged "What is truth?" remark was a philosophical question that not only questioned what constitutes Truth but even cast doubt on the very existence of Truth. Come to think of it, Pontius Pilate would have made a very good ever so skeptical "Humanist" U*U. . .
I'll tell you an interesting story Joel. When I was in Quebec criminal court arguing against Rev. Diane Rollert's and other Montreal Unitarians deeply misguided attempt to seek a restraining order against me I was under oath to tell the truth, the *whole* truth, and nothing but the truth when I was acting as a witness. You know what? The hostile and biased judge repeatedly tried to prevent me from telling the *whole* truth. She repeatedly tried to suppress my testimony that presented the *whole* truth aka the big picture. Likewise she repeatedly prevented me from asking the prosecution witnesses questions that would have brought out the *whole* truth, or at least a good deal more truth about what was really going on. She didn't want to know the *whole* truth and she certainly didn't want the whole truth presented to the court during my testimony as a witness, or revealed via my cross-examination of Rev. Diane Rollert and the police detective who handled her complaint. That would have seriously compromised her ability to render the judgment that she had already determined she wanted to render. . . What is the point of swearing to tell the "whole truth" if the judge and the court knowingly and willfully attempt to suppress your ability to tell the whole truth in order to facilitate their ability to render a highly questionable and far from justified *judgment*?
:Fact is a fetus has from conception a unique DNA, distinct from the mother; is it a human being, deserving the Constitutional protections guaranteed to all people? What is the truth here?
The fact of the matter, aka the truth, is that the fact that a fetus "has from conception a unique DNA, distinct from the mother" is almost irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is a human being Joel. Would it be any more or less a human being if it had exactly the same DNA as its mother Joel? I think not. . . Other facts aka truths need to be considered in order to determine whether or not a fetus is a human being and at which point between conception and birth it becomes one if or when it is determined that a fetus is a human being. Similarly many other facts need to be considered in order to determine whether or not a fetus is deserving the Constitutional protections guaranteed to all people (or would that be all American citizens Joel?) and, if so, at what point in its development it becomes deserving of those Constitutional protections.
Post a Comment