Human Relationships

June 30, 1991

Host: Barbara Thompson ..................................... Invited Guest: Karl Puechl

Barbara: Good Morning! Thanks for joining us as we continue our discussions on "Human Relationships." Pretty basic topic wouldn't you say? I think most of us would agree, though, that since that first atomic bomb was dropped in Hiroshima, we have begun to realize that far more is now at stake than ever before. We are told that we now have the ability to completely demolish the earth --- to bring an end not only to the existence of our own species of human beings but to all species of living beings on earth, in fact to earth itself as a global home for humans, animals, plants, maybe even insects. Science fiction gives us a variety of scenarios on the theme which take some of the shock and horror from the thought. But most of us are recognizing that the time has come when, as pastor Taylor of Calvary Foursquare Church, put it so succinctly just a few weeks ago, "we really need to learn how to get along with one another." And it's that "How" that we're trying to work out each week during this series of discussions --- with a variety of thoughts and ideas being offered by each of our forum guests for us to consider and, hopefully, start putting into action in our own individual lives. The majority of our guests are from various Christian ministries so, although approaching it from different perspectives, urge us to study and follow the laws of Jewish and Christian scripture. To love God and our neighbor. Sounds simple enough. So why do we have such a problem with it? Well, this morning we're going to be talking with Karl Puechl who is representing the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship in our area. Those of you who've been with us during one or more of Karl's previous visits on the Seekers Forum will remember he always gives us a somewhat unique perspective to each discussion, one that's always worth a listen. So let's get on with it, shall we? Karl, welcome back once more to the Seekers Forum.

Karl: Thank you, Barbara. I'm glad to be here to again represent the local Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship. I am especially glad because of the chosen topic, HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS. You may recall that on a couple of my previous visits, I said "that one's religion has value only if it has great impact on one's behavior; that is, on how one interacts with others --- that religion should pave the way for a better life for the individual, for the people that he or she interacts with, and for humanity as a whole." Consequently, for me at least, today's topic gets to the heart of "religion".

Barbara: As you say, Karl, "religion" as you define it. So let's have you do that for us now. We hear and read about the Unitarians from time to time, frequently on the cutting edge of new approaches to old problems. Tell us, again, would you, what the faith or belief or, if you will, what is the "religion" of the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship. What does it mean to be a participating member? And how did you, yourself, determine that this was a group with which you wanted to be identified?

Karl: This can get quite involved because my personal background and Unitarianism are, to a large degree, intricately interwoven. By profession, I am a theoretical, sometimes called a mathematical, physicist and, while there is little comparison, this puts me in the class with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. At the time of Newton, the science of "physics" had not yet been defined, and Newton is often called "a natural philosopher", which simply means "one that studies nature". Even today, while "physics" is defined as "the study of energy", since energy is all-pervasive, most theoretical physicists still consider themselves to be natural philosophers, and somewhat inter-relatedly, many are also Unitarians. Sir Isaac Newton, for example, in his private papers professes to being a Unitarian even though he kept this a secret since he was afraid to risk his tenured position at Cambridge University. I recently learned this fact from reading a book by Frank Manuel entitled, THE RELIGION OF ISAAC NEWTON, Oxford University Press, 1974.

A flavor for this inter-relationship between natural philosophy and Unitarians is provided in a more recent book entitled, INFINITE IN All DIRECTIONS, written by another theoretical physicist, Freeman Dyson. In this book, while describing the change in philosophical emphasis brought about by the industrial revolution, Dyson writes:

"The seminal influences in the growth of science in Manchester, England were the city infirmary (founded in 1752) and the Cross Street Unitarian Chapel. The doctors and the Unitarians were the intellectual elite of the rapidly growing town, and they joined forces in 1781 to create an institution appropriate to their needs, the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society. The Literary and Philosophical Society was consciously designed to give Manchester a cultural focus, to raise the aspirations of the leading citizens to a loftier level, to divert them from the mere accumulation of wealth to the pursuit of higher learning. From the very beginning the society was enormously successful. It attracted and supported first-rate scientists such as Priestly, Dalton and Joule, it published a journal, it built a library and a College of Arts and Sciences and a Mechanics' Institution and Academy, it gave birth to Owens College which ultimately grew into the University of Manchester, and it had a big share in the founding of the British Association for the Advancement of Science."

Now, while individual Unitarian Universalist churches or fellowships are almost never this successful in permeating their philosophical bent throughout the community; our goals haven't changed very much from these early days in Manchester, England; and we do try.

I should point out that one does not have to be a scientist to be a Unitarian; one does not even have to have much schooling. All that one needs is a questioning, open, mind that questions the old without any constraints and is open to new information and new ideas, and does not accept these without further questioning, comparison, and analysis. If you are in the habit of doing these things, you are probably a Unitarian without knowing it. We are not concerned about an individual's specific beliefs; whether he or she believes in one god, or no god, or a hundred gods is not important; what is important is that you question, that you don't try to force your beliefs on others, and that you somehow have appreciation for the fact that there can be unity in diversity; that every man is an integral part of nature, no matter that people are different from animals and plants, and no matter that there is much variability within the human species. We treasure the diversities because this is the way nature is, and besides, the differences make life more interesting. We detest divisiveness of all sorts, especially divisiveness that sets one group of people apart from others because of physical characteristics, customs, or beliefs. Barbara, I think that you were going to ask me some Listener's Questions related to "traditional beliefs". I think that I've just provided Unitarian answers to Numbers 1, 6 and 7 on your list; further, I'd say that simply by asking these questions, these particular listeners have illustrated my previous point that they are probably Unitarians without knowing it. Would you care to read these, sort of, after the fact?

Barbara: Alright, Karl, a little backwards but this seems like a reasonable thing to do. Here are the questions that you say you've already answered.

1. I'm hearing the different ministers talk about believing in "the Trinity" and others who talk about belief in "one God". Does it really make a difference? And if so, Why?

6. How can anyone justify taking the Bible literally? It's a great collection of Jewish history and events but anyone interested in facts sure isn't going to be able to accept it as infallible any more than we can accept the Pope being infallible. God gave us brains so I'm sure He meant for us to use them - meanings of words vary from one language to another - witnesses vary in their accounts of the same events. I'd like to hear what kind of logic is used to justify the position that the Bible is word-for-word true.

7. Evolution is so obvious to anyone who is interested in the truth that it's very hard for me to understand how anyone can still buy into the Adam and Eve story. But I keep hearing references to it by some of your ministers. I know you want us to be understanding but there are limits: for me, it makes them lose credibility for anything else they have to say.

Yes, I see that you've already answered these questions. ... Now, Karl, do you have any general comments you'd like to make on the subject of "Human Relationships", before we get to some of the specific questions asked by our listeners?

Karl: Yes Barbara, I think I have quite a few comments. Maybe, again, my comments will give the answers to some of the questions without them being asked.

First, I'd like to make a general comment about the development of the discipline of Philosophy. William James, the American philosopher, at about the turn of this century suggested that philosophy should get away from "First Causes", an area in which it concentrated on in the past and which is the basis for most of our traditional religions, and rather it should ask what kind of philosophy can do the most for humanity under the current conditions and the foreseeable future? Since that time, most, whom I consider to be pertinent philosophers, have attempted to do this and thereby have turned philosophy from the past to the future, and more towards ethics and morality. Unitarian Universalism considers itself to be in the forefront of this philosophical trend and this, probably, is the main reason for my being a Unitarian. For those who get depressed by the human condition (crime in our streets, drug use, homelessness, poverty, starvation, wars, etc.), this philosophical change in emphasis is very significant and may help point the way to societal improvement.

Another general comment. Theologians tell us that almost every religion has the equivalent of the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Now this sounds lovely, appropriate and meaningful (until one tries to get more specific), then one readily sees that this is an innocuous statement. What if the other guy or gal doesn't play the game of life by this rule? And there are many people who don't. In business, for example, it is common, even perceived admirable, practice to strive to drive the competitor into bankruptcy. Is this what you want done to you? In short, the Golden Rule and, to a lesser degree, also the Ten Commandments or their equivalent, may, perhaps, be valid guides to behavior in an ideal society composed of ideal individuals, but this is not our human condition. Therefore, the only meaningful ethical question is how should we behave knowing full- well that human beings and the cultures developed by their fore-fathers and mothers are far from ideal, but that the ideal, as best as can be ascertained, is worth striving towards.

I once taught a Sunday School class for junior high school students in which I used the Socratian questioning method to have the pupils come to the conclusion that there are conceivable circumstances when it would be ethical to break every one of the Ten Commandments. Take the extreme case of Adolph Hitler. Wouldn't it have been ethical, moral, and even saintly if one of Hitler's closest compatriots had killed him during the early 1930's and thereby had saved about 30 million innocent lives and indescribable misery for a large portion of humanity? Or more recently, wouldn't the same conclusion have been valid for Saddam Hussein?

Since my thoughts have turned to the near East and Desert Storm, let me ask a related question. Ethically, which is a more defensible action, bombing the hell out of the Iraqi's and killing about 100,000 of them so that we would lose less than 100 of our soldiers, as we did; or stopping the bombing earlier so that they and our projected losses would have been about 10,000 each? The latter approach, would have saved about 80,000 lives? Wouldn't that have been a more humane, more ethical, alternative? But, politically speaking, would George Bush and Gen. Schwarzkopf have been greater or lesser heroes? How ethical, or moral, is our society, and how much are we, as individuals, willing to strive to make it otherwise?

What often gets us into the greatest trouble is the "we are we and they are the other guys" attitude. Under Naziism, "we" were the noble Germans, "they" were the lowly Jews. In Western civilization, "we" are the Christians who have the true religion, "they" are the infidels. In Ireland, "we" are the Catholics, "they" are the Protestants, and vice-versa. In the Near-East, "we" are the Arabs, they are the "Jews". In World War II, "we" were Americans, they were the less-than-human "Japs". Closer to home in our American culture, "we" were the pure whites, "they" were the niggers; "we" were, and some of us still are, the macho men, "they" were, and to some of us still are, the weak women; "we" are the have-nots, "they" are the haves; "we" are the aggrieved, "they" are the aggressors; etc., etc. Yes, one cannot deny the differences, but the commonalities, logically, are always more than adequate to counteract the differences; besides, as I said before, why not try to appreciate, sometimes even admire, the differences --- diversity is nature's way and makes life interesting; uniformity is down-right boring.

Since my comments have been quite general and philosophical, Barbara, would you now please read Question 2 and then Question 1 so as to keep on in this vein before we get to some of the more personal questions sent in by our listeners?

Barbara: Alright, here are the questions.

2. Can we have a decent civilization without believing in God or some kind of "higher authority"? 1. Do you really believe it is possible that human beings might be able to learn to live together without killing?

Karl: This is an interesting combination of questions. If believing in God or some kind of higher authority had something to do with human morality or ethical development, no one would ever have thought of asking the second question. Our major religions have been with us for over a 1000 years, all have advocated and preached "peace on earth", yet many of us still wonder if human beings might be able to learn to live together without killing?? How can this be? One can take this as an indication of failure and as a condemnation of religion or as misplaced emphasis by philosophers, or both. Also, I take it as an indication that humanity is slow to learn, after 1000 years of repeated failure, one would think that mankind would give up the old dogmas and try something new; but, perhaps, we simply have to be patient since evolutionary progress is measured in millions of years rather than thousands.

Recognition of this hesitancy to give up the old, touches upon an interesting concept introduced by Richard Dawkins in 1976 in his book entitled, THE SELFISH GENE. Therein Dawkins describes a new tyrant which has arisen within human culture to take the place of the old. The new tyrant is the "meme", the cultural analog of the gene. A meme is a behavioral pattern which replicates itself by cultural transfer from individual to individual instead of by biological inheritance. Examples of memes are religious beliefs, linguistic idioms, fashions in art and science, in food and in clothes. Almost all the phenomena of evolutionary genetics and speciation have their analogs in cultural history, with the meme taking over the functions of the gene. The meme, therefore, is a self-replicating unit of behavior, like the gene. The meme and gene are equally selfish. The history of human culture shows us to be as subject to the tyranny of our memes as other species are to the tyranny of genes. But Dawkins ends his discussion with a call for liberation. Our capacity for foresight, he writes, gives us the power to transcend our memes, just as our culture gave us the power to transcend our genes. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

Now Barbara, do we have time to go on to some of the more personal questions?

Barbara: Yes, we do have some time, so here are some questions.

7. I've tried being understanding and compassionate with people and, for a time, they seem to appreciate it. But I can't tell you how many times they've turned against me afterwards. Should I expect this? I'm really getting pretty bitter.

And Karl, there are two similar questions:

8. I know we're supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive but I've been abused both physically and mentally; I try to forgive but I just can't. At first I was scared, then I just plain hated. I think it's getting better but it's a long way from forgiveness. I could never trust that person again. My problem now is I don't feel like trusting anyone and if I can't trust them I don't see how I could ever reach the point of being loving again. They go hand in hand for me. In church when they talk about loving and forgiving I feel like maybe I don't even belong any more. I wonder if people like me can ever be loving again.

4. I think I get along pretty good with God. But I sure can't say the same for people. I haven't found any yet I felt I could trust. Every time I have they've let me down one way or another. I get along real good with most of the animals too. If the evolution theory is right, then I'd say we were better off when we were apes. What about this idea? Maybe Adam and Eve were apes and then after they ate the forbidden fruit and God turned them out of the Garden of Eden, they became human beings? Also, consider this: Adam and Eve didn't have any children until after they left the Garden. Do you think there might have been a connection there?

Karl: Well, Barbara, these questions move us from mostly philosophy to mostly psychology. From a psychological standpoint, a person needs interaction with others. We can't escape from the rest of the world, nor do we, as individuals, want this. To some extent, we must become pragmatic. Recognize the faults in people. Stay away from those you don't like. But above all things, don't generalize. Just because you've interacted with one or two SOB's doesn't mean that almost everyone behaves this way. Accept each person as being good and honorable until his or her behavior is proved different; most people are good; the assumption that a person is good, has much more than a 50% chance of being correct. Now it is known that there are some people who are attracted to the SOB's, for lack of a better word. If you think you are such a person, think about what attracts you to people and if you can't seem to dope it out for yourself, seek some kind of counseling. Don't worry about "not turning the other cheek" or not living by the Golden Rule; it is reasonable to act unkindly to those who are unkind to us, and we should not feel guilty by such a reaction on our part. However, in all our actions we should recognize that one of the major attributes which sets human beings apart from the other animals is our ability to contemplate the future; therefore, in thinking about our possible actions or reactions, let's not lose our human-ness; let's always consider the longer-range consequences. A particular action or response may give immediate relief, even pleasure, but it could lead to disaster in the long run. In short, since this is all that we have time for, the psychological keys are: always try to assess the longer-range consequences of your actions; try not to generalize; try not to make yourself feel guilty; think about the current situation and past similar situations and if you see a disturbing pattern, seek advice and help from someone else, perhaps a professional counselor.

Barbara: Well, boring on one thing we don't need to worry about when you're on the Seekers Forum, Karl. As usual, we could probably keep this up for another hour, or so. But our time is up for this morning. Thanks again very much for joining us and giving us more good food for thought. And I have a hunch you've stimulated some good discussion amongst our listeners too. We'll be looking forward to your joining us during our next series, Kar.l.