I'm back!

After a year's absence, I am going to open up some blogging again, this time with a wider perspective on things.

First post:

Savage Blog: The Silence of the Lambs

Here's my response:

@ Richard Bott - you are an eloquent, measured and passionate advocate. Viewed within one frame of reference, your actions and words have unquestionably done good in the world. For those things I respect you.

That said, it seems clear that you believe a few things to be capital-T "True":

(1) That there is a god -- a supreme being who has consciousness, created the universe and takes an interest in human beings.

(2) That a human being who lived a couple of thousand years ago was in some way either the son of that god or an aspect of him/her/it.

and

(3) That the words and actions of that human being allow us today, if we look at them correctly, to get closer to more capital-T "Truths".

Am I correct that you believe those things to be true? If so, I believe that in the broader frame of reference, you are and will always be doing harm. Why should I, or anyone else, believe that YOUR intrepretation of the words and actions of this human being/son of god/prohet are right, while all those other folks out there, the ones who say that the derived "truth" means that homosexuals will burn in hell, among other wonderful things, are wrong?

Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe. That does not mean that every fact that every person "believes" in is worthy of the same respect as every other. I can believe that god created the world in a week a few thousand years ago and for whatever reason chose to sprinkle his/her/its creation with millions of telltale signs that something else entirely happened. I can believe that a flying blob of spaghetti reached down its noodly appendage and did all the same. I can believe that George W. Bush had the best interests of humanity and the United States in mind when he chose to invade Iraq. I can believe that Paz de la Huerta has a really nice rack. People may believe all these things with equal fervor, but one of them is more likely to be true than the others.

Without some common frame of reference in which to discuss and test the likely truth of these matters, we cannot really even start a discussion. Once you restrict your frame of reference by saying "no matter what the evidence may say, I believe X," the discussion is really at an end.

I really struggle with the philosophical belief that intellectual honesty is critical, versus the very pragmatic truth that I will never convince the large majority of the world that religion is not an appropriate construct for finding truth. More later.