I don’t think that the quest for objectivity has any more link to emotion, per se, than does, say, any particular spiritual quest. It’s strange that the quest for objectivity should be linked more precisely to emotional comfort when it very clearly religion that is so linked. Throughout history people have wanted to believe that there is an afterlife, that they will see their loved ones again, that God will help them through their medical woes, etc… etc. They haven’t desperately wanted to believe that their body will merely decompose, that the earth, as well as humans and all their concerns are not the center of the universe, that vaccines work, etc.
Please give me an example of the use of non-Aristotelian logic in other cultures as well as the context in which it is used. I will bet you that this is either not used in any context where practical results are required or its use created certain problems with the culture or they simply got lucky or had spare resources to waste.
BTW, the use of non-Aristotelian logic was also common in Western culture in the Christian church. I mean the Trinity. Come on – there are three Gods which are all distinct and all all-powerful and yet at the same time there is only one God. Uh huh. Of course, this didn’t stop scholastic philosophers from squandering their creative energies trying to accommodate this profoundly non-logical idea within a logical system.
We can never be objective. However, we should all aspire toward objectivity if we are serious about getting together and solving problems in this world.
Christine, Janet, Anthony, Daniel, Melissa, and Everyone on this thread,
Reason is such an important topic! I’m hoping some of you are still working on this, and I would love to collaborate with any or all of you.
Here is my amendment: (#483, with a sentence added)
We search for truth and meaning, informed by reason, evidence, and the results of science, often motivated by wonder, curiosity, and concern for others.
We covenant to listen to and respect the views of others and to remain open to new
ideas. We will use our abilities to reason and think critically to put our values into action.
Do you see some common ground? I’d love to work with others and put forth an amendment by June 5!
LeRae
LeRae, WHICH longer note in the thread to you mean? Can you share it in a link? I hadn’t been following this but want to. You are absolutely right that Reason would make and should be a core value…
Yes, I am. I had a big event last night that basically sucked all the oxygen out of my schedule for the last 3-4 days, but now I am ready to focus on amendments again …
Hello to everyone on this thread!
I started this thread 3 1/2 weeks ago and stopped receiving notifications on it, so I assumed the conversation was defunct. I’m not sure why I didn’t receive notifications (they’re not in my SPAM box). Anyway, it is not really clear to me from what I read when I first signed onto this chat space exactly what will happen to this, or any, of the threads related to Article II. I am not attending GA, and no one in my congregation who is appears to understand how to propose changes to the Article II proposal.
I am happy to have had this group generate a fine discussion on the notion of Reason and Science as UU Values. I proposed the amendment at the top of this thread to generate interest, discussion, and hopefully create the possibility of an additional value that encapsulates this premise. I am quite open to editing my wording, or scrapping it entirely if another proposed amendment on Reason and Science is written. What I care most about is that Reason and Science, as Jonathan Tweet said in his post, “Grounded in Science” (Submission 106), “Heeding the findings of science differentiates us from a New Age movement.” (I wish I knew how to link posts to this one, because I would do that for you if I understood how this chat space works.)
LeRae, I see tons of common ground with your proposal. Unfortunately, I’m pretty inept at managing this discussion space! What is your understanding of how this chat space figures into the actual procedure for amendment proposal at GA?
Christine, I’m going to be presumptuous and provide my own answer to your question even though you have tagged LeRae… This chat space makes for awkward communication seems to me. What I’ve seen happen from workshops is that someone can start a google doc with one or more amendment ideas, post the link here, and then people can comment on the google doc to create a joint amendment. (Use edits become suggestions). You, @Concerned and @Janet have a lot in common, and I’m glad to participate too. One of y’all would be the lead to submit… Do you want to create a google doc?
Fellow UUs, can we put our heads together to blend these conceptualizations of what Reason would look like as a UU Value? Please feel free to edit on the Google Doc.
Probably you will want to set the link permissions to “anyone with link may EDIT” – otherwise you will get each person asking for edit access (like I just did)
Great, Bek! I appreciate the rescue. I had started a somewhat lengthy response to Christine. At this point would it be more convenient to send it through our google doc?
First, the good news is my congregation has 4 delegates to GA! But I believe two of them will want to adopt the proposal with no further amendments; while the other two seem quite open to what the congregation wants and hopefully, one of them may carry the reason amendment forward. I’m not a delegate. My congregation has one more Article II meeting Sunday, and then a delegate meeting Tuesday May 30. I’m sure this topic will be a high priority with the membership, but it would be best if we can find someone on this site who is working on reason and is a delegate, so they will be able to submit the amendment.
I’m grateful to Bek for the tech help in getting us started!
LeRae
Sorry, I made it so that anyone could read it but forgot about the EDIT permission. Everyone should be able to access and edit it now.
Thanks for your dedication to this effort!
There are seven “Values” amendments which suggest adding “reason” as a value, that’s in addition to the 10 “Inspirations” (31% of the C-2-3 amendments) which discuss adding science or reason. Clearly this is an important point that should not be neglected.
It does make me wonder, though, what exactly distinguishes “reason” as being either a value or an inspiration? I’m inclined to think it belongs in the sources, since reason and logic don’t in themselves dictate any particular actions.
Wow, I totally think that ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ in themselves dictate actions. It’s thinking thinking through, weighing alternatives, choosing what priorities one has, discerning which of our values/principles we are following or not following. I mean reason and logic are present constantly in leading one toward decision points of actions.
Logic is a purely intellectual process which allow us to choose between actions given some assumptions, but the “thinking” about if you should give your money to the homeless shelter or the children’s hospital is not the important moral action – it’s the giving to charity which is ultimately important. Logic is an axiomatic system which prescribes neither the axioms nor the conclusions which result. Logic is only as good as the assumptions we put into it, and concluding what is “right” through logic isn’t the same as actually doing it.
Reasoning is not data, and reasoning is not a conclusion. Reason alone cannot tell you if it is ethically right to prosecute one’s own father in court for theft, because reason doesn’t say “do or do not”, it only says how one might choose between them. If one values personal property more than filial piety, then perhaps one should prosecute, but one can use reason to reach either conclusion.
This is something that reason has in common with democracy; democracy is also a process which allows us to choose actions. Democracy doesn’t itself prescribe which amendments should pass, it only prescribes a process to determine which amendments should pass.