[[EricSaumur | Eric]]'s insistence that religion is a matter of choice sounded like 'ethical relativism' to many of the participants at [[Sol2012]] and most of those participants saw 'ethical relativism' as connotatively bad. But it is possible to look at ethical relativism in at least two ways, and the two ways discussed here have very different consequences.
In one way, you see the choice of ethics as optional and arbitrary and therefore irrelevant; the consequence is that you can do what ever you want; nothing matters. That leads to apathy and cynicism, inaction and the cultural downward spiral that we are currently in. This first way uses ethical relativism as a justification to build no ethical framework at all.
In another way, you see the choice of ethical principals as a search for what works for each individual, community, society and civilization and what speaks to them and has meaning for them; what goals attract them. In this way, ethics becomes more like engineering than science. In engineering there are many possible solutions to any problem. There may or may not be an ideal best solution but generally engineers don't care about the question; the important thing is to find a way that works well enough that the problem is solved with a reasonable amount of effort so that effort is available to solve other problems. Consider computer chips. Maybe there is an ideal computer chip, an ideal way to arrange atoms such that they can create the ultimate computing machine. But the productive engineers have spent no time at all searching for it. Instead they have just improved the chip bit by bit (pun intended ;)) until they have got us to the computers we use today and they will continue improving it until they create the computers we will use next decade and the decade after that. In the end, they may find many different arrangements which are equally good and for which they cannot find any further improvements. At that point it will be a choice as to which one to build, but most everyone will agree that which ever one we choose it will be better than the Vic 20 was.
In this second way of being ethically relativistic we build our ethical frame work and test it and other communities build and test other ethical frameworks. We recognize that by building many different ethical frameworks rather than just one, our civilization can make more progress toward ethical frameworks that work better in the future. We recognize that there may be no ideal framework but there are probably some that almost everyone can agree are better than the Spanish Inquisition. To join the search for better ethical frameworks, the one requirement is to accept that your current ethical framework may not be the best one possible. Certainly, you must recognize that your ethical framework is not the only one that is valid. In order to be certain that you are not holding back your own progress in ethics you must recognize that no element of your ethical framework is unquestionable. You may be certain to 99% that you have an element right. You may be unwilling to bother spending time questioning that element because it would take away from time spent working on elements of which you are less certain. But avoiding the 100% certainty illusion, you will keep your mind just open enough that if someone puts forward an idea that contradicts your dearest ethical framework element, you will be able to listen. It may not be possible to move you from your choice but by listening you will be able to build a bond with the other person. This bond may appear as an enemy to your own ideas but in the end it may turn out to be an ally. The bond may allow you to access this other person on an emotional level and that access may do more to convince him or her that you are right than any rhetorical argument or arrogant assuredness you throw in the other person's face.
This applies to all elements of religion: seeking spiritual experience, practice, community, giving comfort, finding meaning, working toward goals. Thus ethical relativism becomes religious relativism. This second way of religious relativism will allow religions to focus on religious progress, on finding [[religion components]] which speak to their members in deeper ways than they have yet found. Lets call these religions, Progressing Religions. Progressing Religions will reach out to everyone more subtly on every level. Progressing Religions will evangelize as much by listening as by talking. By asserting that 'we believe what we believe' and 'we find meaning in what we do' rather than asserting that 'everyone should believe what we believe and do what we do', these religions will allow others to see their ideas and ideals without feeling forced into conceptual frameworks. This will make followers of other religions more open to the ideas and ideals of Progressing Religions. In the end, the ideas of Progressing Religions will make more progress by their listening to other ideas than by opposing other ideas.
One of the things that puzzled people at the conference was that [[EricSaumur | Eric]] insisted that the necessity was openness rather than reverence for life. Eric was never able to express clearly why he felt this was so. This may have been because he was unable to express what he saw as the consequences of not being open. Phrases like, 'Are we supposed to condemn those who are not open, isn't that not being open.' were heard. But Eric didn't want to condemn anyone. The consequence of not being open is that you cannot 'join in the search'. It is not a consequence we impose, as inventors of the method, it is a consequence that those who fail to be open impose on themselves. Openness is an essential part of the religious method because it is the doorway through which the method becomes available to its potential users. We must remain open to ideas that oppose our most fundamental beliefs because we do not want to be excluded from the search for better ways. This is why Eric opposed including 'life is precious' in the religious method just as he would have opposed the inclusion of 'the universe is older than 10000 years' in the scientific method. 'Life is precious' is a choice that we made by using the religious method just as the age of the universe is a truth discovered by the scientific method. Neither is part of the method itself. My certainty that 'life is precious' is a necessary part of the best choice is on the order of (100% - 1/infinity) but it is not 100% and so I can listen to other views and still be part of the search. By asserting that in using the religious method, our first step is accepting uncertainty about our own practices and beliefs, we are not judging anyone, we are showing others how the door can be opened for them into the search for better ways.
Once they accept that first principle they will listen with more open minds to our beliefs and will take them on if our beliefs speak to them. For that to happen our next step is to articulate our beliefs in ways that are most likely to speak to others. This is where mapping comes in. We need to map the relationship between the upward spirals and map how contributing to the lower level spirals and then ever higher level spirals leads to our beautiful vision of Sol's family of new worlds.
== A Second Essay on Moral Relativism: How Moral Relativists Must Learn to Fight for What they Know is Wrong ==
Value is the driver of human action. If, at a moment in time, you value a bag of milk more than the five dollar bill in your pocket, then you will be motivated to buy a bag of milk for five dollars. If you value the sanctity of the environment more than economic wealth, then you will vote for a politician who stands for environmental sanctity, even if it means reduced economic wealth. If you value your self-respect more than your life and you feel you will not respect yourself if you fail to act in a particular situation, then you will act in that situation, even at the risk of losing your life.
But, if I am right and morality is relative, then, when you disagree with someone about morality, it is just your opinion vs. theirs. So how can you justify taking action against them? You have no objective reason for doing so. You are forced to accept that, in their frame of reference, you are wrong. So do only moral realists get to act? Do they get to act only because they are ignorant of the fact that they are wrong in another person's frame of reference? Must moral relativists be paralyzed by their recognition of the subjectivity of their convictions?
The answer is not easy. This is not a surprise. There is a long history of honest moral philosophers pointing out that morality is difficult. This is what has made it possible for so much to be written on the subject. My experience has taught me not just to not bother looking for easy answers. It has taught me to dismiss easy answers.
The answer is that moral quandaries always arise from conflicts between multiple values. If I spend this money to feed my child, I won't have it to buy medicine for my mother. If we cripple the economy to protect the environment, people may starve in the streets. If I die saving a stranger, I won't be there later to protect my child. If we force our values onto another culture, we will know that, in their frame of reference, we are oppressors, but, if we ignore the harm that another culture inflicts on its members, we will be complicit in the perpetration of that harm.
At some point, you must accept that you are human. You must recognize that your frame of reference calls you to take action. You must recognize that your frame of reference is no more or less valid than anyone else's. And so you must act. You must decide what you aspire to be. You must work to alter yourself into the moral being you aspire to be. You must remain conscious of the line between what is right in your frame of reference and what is right in someone else's. You must decide when the moral being you aspire to be will be called to act across the line and when the acceptance of the line itself is more important.
But when you cross the line, you may have to fight people whom you know are right, in their own frame of reference. This is the most difficult task faced by a moral relativist. Sometimes, you must fight for what you know is wrong, in another frame of reference, because you are human and you wouldn't be human if you didn't.