Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[CDB1718]

You might have answered this already, so please tell me if so.

Do you identify as a religious person? If so, what makes you identify with that label over the label of secular humanist?

What does the UU community provide for you that other venues like secular humanist, artistic, social justice, agnostic/atheist communities don’t provide? Is it the culture or the blend of these values or is there something religious/spiritual specific to the UU community that you can’t get elsewhere?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, for all you non-Catholics, I think there is a miscommunication here. Personal or Private revelations has a specific meaning in the Catholic church. Basically, they divide revelation into two categories: Public, which is the revelation as outlined in the Bible which all Catholics are required to believe in, and Private, which is revelation given in the post-Biblical period, and which Catholics are free to believe in or not.

Not quite correct. Public Revelation, according to Catholicism, is not only outlined in the Bible, but also in Sacre d Tradition, which is the living transmission of the Word of God.

 

[mafh]

Not quite correct. Public Revelation, according to Catholicism, is not only outlined in the Bible, but also in Sacre d Tradition, which is the living transmission of the Word of God.

Thanks for the correction. At least I got it partially right.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, this example is not quite fair or on target, and I’ll try to explain why.

There is general consensus that the chemical formula is H2O. You will find no reputable chemist or other expert who says otherwise. However, humanity has achieved no such consensus on religion, or even agreement upon what tools you are supposed to use in order to decide among competing religious truths. Being a non-dogmatic organization, UU keeps all possible religious sources in this hypothetical library, so long as they don’t violate the 7 principles. UU isn’t a truth-establishing organization at the institutional level, like the Catholic Church. What it does is offer tools for its members to seek the truth.

We do not derive truth from a consensus, mafh.

Water consists of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, regardless of whether “there is general consensus” on this or not.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the correction. At least I got it partially right.

 

[mafh]

We do not derive truth from a consensus, mafh.

Water consists of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, regardless of whether “there is general consensus” on this or not.

Actually, that is how science works – we gather evidence until we finally achieve consensus, and that consensus opinion we call a scientific truth. It has, so far, been the most reliable way of uncovering truths that humanity has discovered so far. But, not all truths can be uncovered this way – religious truths, for the most part, cannot. So, for the religiously undecided person, all the various religious traditions in the world can be thought of as being ‘in play’, and the person must find some method of choosing among them.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, that is how science works – we gather evidence until we finally achieve consensus, and that consensus opinion we call a scientific truth.

Well, yes and no.

Truth will never be determined by a consensus.

But you are correct insofar as that science does depend upon evidence that must be gathered in order to form an opinion.

But whether science had discovered that the world revolved around the sun, or it still proclaimed a geocentric universe, did not change the fact that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun.

It has, so far, been the most reliable way of uncovering truths that humanity has discovered so far.

Well, it’s the most reliable way of uncovering material truths.

But it’s pretty obvious that there’s a world of possibilities that are extraneous to material truths.

But, not all truths can be uncovered this way – religious truths, for the most part, cannot.

Nor can philosophical truths be discovered through science.

So, for the religiously undecided person, all the various religious traditions in the world can be thought of as being ‘in play’, and the person must find some method of choosing among them.

Have you found a better way than using fides et ratio?

 

[robsully]

Thank you mafh for your response. Quite informative. Now I am really looking forward to the catholic response.

 

[mek42]

That is the most absurd thing I have read on this thread.

Why?

 

[PRmerger]

Why?

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t think that all kinds of truths are the same qualitatively. From high to lower, I would say that there are mathematical truths, there are scientific truths, there are truths in sociology and there are truths in politics.

So what kind of Truth do Catholics talk about? Are they mathematical, scientific, sociological, or political?

 

[nmgauss]

Ok.

Must. Not. Roll. Eyes.

sigh

It doesn’t matter, eh?

So you can profess that God hates an ethnic group and it doesn’t matter?

You can profess that Mary is part of the Trinity and it doesn’t matter?

You can profess that Paul’s writings are heresy and it doesn’t matter?

Sarcasm gets you nowhere. Can’t you reply as a reasonable person instead of expressing your disgust? None of these “It doesn’t matter” questions has any relevance to non-Christian religions. If my theological convictions relegate all three of these matters to a level of irrelevance, then why should it matter?

 

[PRmerger]

So what kind of Truth do Catholics talk about? Are they mathematical, scientific, sociological, or political?

We talk about God’s Truth.

“All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it.” This duty derives from “the very dignity of the human person.” It does not contradict a “sincere respect” for different religions which frequently “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians “to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith.” CCC 2014

 

[PRmerger]

Sarcasm gets you nowhere. Can’t you reply as a reasonable person instead of expressing your disgust? None of these “It doesn’t matter” questions has any relevance to non-Christian religions. If my theological convictions relegate all three of these matters to a level of irrelevance, then why should it matter?

Of course they have relevance to non-Christian religions. Esp. the one that questions whether it matters whether God hates a particular ethnic group.

 

[nmgauss]

Of course they have relevance to non-Christian religions. Esp. the one that questions whether it matters whether God hates a particular ethnic group.

I thought God was supposed to be omnibeneficial. Also, the concept of God has no relevance to pagans or Buddhists. If God is anthropomorphic and has a human personality, then of course he can hate just like Adolph Hitler. But I thought God was supposed to be good and have no hate towards anybody. Of course, punishment may come upon a serious sinner that does not repent. Is this a justified basis for hate?

 

[Tomdstone]

So what kind of Truth do Catholics talk about? Are they mathematical, scientific, sociological, or political?

For the most part, I would guess that they are religious truths and moral or ethical truths. I don’t see ethical truths being the same qualitatively as mathematical truths. Take for example, the question of the ethics of capital punishment. There are some Catholics in favor, while there are others opposed and both are in good standing in the Church (If this is wrong, please correct me). Or take for example, the ethics of torture. Today, all Catholics are against it, but there was a time when torture was used in the Inquisition process. However, the rule that 1+1 = 2 seems to be a hard and fast, unchanging rule, and it is universal.

 

[robsully]

Seeing as the catholics will not or cannot reply to my post, Tomdstone you seem to have some insight into my query. If God does not change and the truth does not change, (it is the truth) how and why would something as basic as torture be accepted at one time and then not later?

I’m sure there maybe other examples of changing beliefs but you mentioned torture so I’ll start my quest there.

 

[Tomdstone]

Seeing as the catholics will not or cannot reply to my post, Tomdstone you seem to have some insight into my query. If God does not change and the truth does not change, (it is the truth) how and why would something as basic as torture be accepted at one time and then not later?

I’m sure there maybe other examples of changing beliefs but you mentioned torture so I’ll start my quest there.

My guess is that some religious or ethical “truths” are more flexible than mathematical truths. One way to see this is to take a look at the acceptance of the mathematical truth that 1+1 = 2. This is universally accepted across all cultures and religions and all time spans. However, some Catholics accept Limbo, while others do not. So when you consider the “truth” about Limbo, you are up in the air and don’t have any way to decide yes or no. This is quite different from the situation of mathematical truth. Once it has been proven, it is universally accepted. For another example, take the case of the Pythagorean theorem in two dimensional Euclidean space. No one denies it. No one doubts it as being true.

 

[robsully]

I understand your logic. But is it not problematic to have a religion that criticises another for searching for a changing truth when in fact it’s own history is of a truth in flux?

 

[Major_Tom]

Through one’s reason.

Perhaps you could share with us how reason illustrates the existence of God and the Catholic Church (his gift to us, yes?) This may also help sharpen the discussion of perceived truths, which has been a sizable part of the thread.