Acknowledging biases

I know that we all have biases. Some are hidden so deep we don’t see them, but we are well aware of others. Rather than adjust my words to try to hide my conscious biases, I want to be upfront about them here:

Reality vs. speculation

When you start talking to people interested in spirituality and religion, it’s easy to get drawn into a speculative debate. But my assumption is that there is a hunger among people for verifiable answers, not theoretical debate. Of course, some people have a tendency to present speculation as if it was a firm answer — that’s one reason so many folks are skeptical about religion. The “truths” they present can be verified only by anecdotal testimonials, or by leaps of faith. In reaction, I’ve become a fan of common sense. Our everyday experiences can be a good guide to reality, because you can verify those truths for yourself. To be sure, common sense is not a reliable guide on the frontiers of knowledge. But those frontiers are far from our daily lives. Your life tomorrow will be pretty much the same, whether or not string theory is correct. It will even be pretty much the same, whether or not God created the universe. I’m not belittling the valuable work of philosophers and scientists. But the truth that affects you the most is seen in what your experience at your scale (as opposed to the scale of atoms or galaxies) and your time (as opposed to nano-seconds or light years). So I try to avoid asking you to speculate about abstract theories. Instead, my bias is that you should look for verifiable truth in your own experiences.

Accessibility vs. perfection

Traditionally in Western societies, people were introduced to spirituality through words like “God,” “sin,” “Hell,” and “grace.” Those words were effective once — in isolated, static towns where the culture gave them clear meanings. But today, in our globalized, media-drenched society, the meanings of these words are vague — and often not the meaning we might intend. I don’t denigrate such words for those who find them to be effective, but it’s my contention that they don’t make an immediate connection with the spiritually undernourished. To reach those folks, we’d first have to take time to explain and educate. But we’re not likely to be given that time. Why would folks devote time to learning concepts about which they’re already indifferent or skeptical? Instead, I think we need to use words that make an immediate connection, words that relate directly to their personal experiences. True, we may not be exposing them to the full richness of a sophisticated faith, as some would prefer. But my bias is that, as a practical matter, it’s more effective to get them started on a spiritual path immediately, even if the faith picture is incomplete and less than perfect.

Need vs. truth

The history of religion can seem like the story of human need. We need an explanation for floods. We need help against our enemies. We need comfort. We need hope. We need meaning. History also shows the intense struggles that can result when truth challenges a need-based belief. We see that struggle today, as the theory of evolution challenges the need to explain sin by way of the Garden of Eden, and to explain release from sin by way of a cross. When theologians today write obituaries for a personal God, are they elevating truth above need? More specifically, when I talk about a non-theistic personal spirituality, am I ignoring some deep human need? My bias is that, in the long run, it’s not a good idea to believe a falsehood because it meets a need. But I recognize that, for many people, need may be more important than truth. That’s why I’d like to road test my theory in a real community, to see if it meets needs well enough to thrive.

“Truth” vs. “truth”

My bias is that, with our human limitations, we can only glimpse hints of “truth.” We are on an endless journey to discover truth because we can never master “Truth.” So, in the previous item, when I talk about “truth,” I am talking only about a theoretical concept. I discount claims to know “Truth” in any absolute, specific way. The gift of the Human Spirit urges us to seek truth and debate truth. But respect for the Human Spirit means that my claims about truth cannot be based on my superior gift, and cannot be debated without an open mind regarding evidence. When it comes to “Truth,” modesty is in order.