The Things We Say

I am always curious about language, especially the logical extrapolations of statements people make. How we choose the words we speak or write is so imperative to how we are understood, and for being one who is so critical of how words are used, often, I am really quite terrible at expressing my own thoughts. One thing I am plagued with in life is my insufferably incredulous nature, especially about statements seemingly innocent at the surface that seem to claim a great virtue or evil or edge on truth. This is not just in regards to religion or philosophical topics, but in regards to myriad topics.

In the real world we really don't have the time to thoroughly think about the statements we make in great depths, and I don't really think that one can hold this human fault or shortcoming against anybody. But what if someone asks you the question you hadn't thought of in regards to your statement? When I ask questions which I too often do, most people just think I am an ass or "great, here goes Paul again". One friend of mine asked if I got some pleasure out of watching people squirm when I ask these questions. My response was no. My goal is to more fully understand the world so I can become a richer spirit that has at its worst attempted to step outside itself, not so I can squash the spirit of others. Although this is my goal the outcome is usually one of nausea and generalized anxiety.

I can honestly say, also, that my motive in my gazillion questions is to try to open windows for people to step outside themselves or their context to view the world. For some this might seem an admirable thing; for others, in a way, this is arrogant or comes off as such, I suppose, as it assumes that I have a view that no one else does. That is not my goal.

One of my favorite such statements I referred to in the first paragraph is this or something to this effect: "the statement or claim that no person can claim to know an absolute truth is itself a statement of absolute truth thus a statement that disproves itself". Of course, if the statement disproves itself, it proves its thesis.

Another statement, that I find more relative to our lives today at least in the U.S., is the statement "these people have died for our freedom". I have always wondered if those who make this statement realize the complexity of such a statement in regards to the statement itself and the context in which it is made.

I would love to hear comments on what this statement means to anyone who reads this.

Moving On

After reflection with a friend and various other factors, I think I am going to take a break from the blog. Maybe permanently. Especially as a poster to the blog. If others would like to continue to dialogue and post that is fine by me. I may even throw in a comment here or there.

Either in the next few weeks or when I am done with school (July 27), I will post my final statement which will summarize my journey and where I currently stand in regards to faith and my life. It won't be based on any steep philosophy of religion or science but simply on my experiences in life. I am ready to move on with my life and I look forward to writing this final statement. See you in July maybe August.

Reason- Augustine & Nietzche Part II

Part II of My paper on Reason according to Augustine & Nietzche:

It interesting that both Augustine and Nietzsche, who stand at opposite ends of the spectrum would find unity in the fact that reasoning is flawed. Both of them take on a Neo-platonic perspective that there are fundamental truths external to people that provide the ground floor for reasoning to develop. They would argue that an ethic based totally on internal reasoning is flawed by the flaws of the person doing the reasoning. Nietzsche would argue that the average person may not even be capable of such reasons and is easily deluded by their limited capacities. Thus both philosophers would disagree with Kant, and with him the entrenched paradigm of the West, that morality cannot be derived through reason alone.
Nietzsche’s foundational principle is that all men are driven by the will to power. He attempts to show the reader this is his conclusion through reason. This view became the title of one of his books and was perhaps best articulated in Beyond Good and Evil:
“[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life. (Nietzsche, P.259)

For Nietzsche power is the underlying motivator of all actions and because of that is the supreme good. He who has the most power therefore controls morals, and can force others to abide by his convictions as well. So ultimately it is the person with power that makes the most difference. Exploitation is not necessarily wrong as it is “after all the will to life”. In his work the Antichrist he states what is the ultimate good:
“What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.” (Nietzsche, 1999, P.2)

Nietzsche even argues in Beyond Good and Evil that men should acknowledge there are grades and rank that “separate man from man” and that equality before God is a nonsense that weakens men and countries making them “sickly” and “mediocre” (Nietzsche, 1990, P. 69, 71). For the majority of people “exist for service and general utility” and religion is often used to buttress their ego. In fact, Nietzsche titles one of his books Human, all too Human where he argues that men should return back to their animal nature. “Error has transformed animals into men; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal? (P. 182)
Augustine, on the other hand would refute Nietzsche at every step. “When therefore, man lives according to man, not according to God he is like the devil (Augustine, 1993, P. 445)". In other words if he lives according to the animal instincts that Nietzsche would advocate Augustine would say he makes himself the devil.
For Augustine the animal instinct of men is a result of the fall of mankind away from God. What is now our animal instinct is the source of all that is evil because they are desires that are not subservient to God. As he states in the City of God “because it had willfully deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferior servant (animal desires) (p.422). As man separated himself from God, desires which used to be ordered to and subjugated to the will of God, now create strife and are opposed to God. When men disobeyed God it threw out of kilter its natural desires and “being of his own will corrupted…begot corrupted and condemned children (P.422). Augustine also sees power in a completely different light. In the City of God he states
“For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man, although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave, and that not of one man, but, what is far more grievous, of as many masters as he has vices; of which vices when the divine Scripture treats, it says, "For of whom any man is overcome, to the same he is also the bond-slave (p.112)."

Therefore when Nietzsche advocates raw power and a return to animal instinct, Augustine would dissent.
Here Augustine and Nietzsche enter into an intriguing debate. For Nietzsche, God is a construct built by the ordinary men in order that they can deal with their routine and powerless role in life. Nietzsche states in his book The Birth of Tragedy, “Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life (Nietzsche, P. 23) .” People who are powerless because do not have the intellectual strength to influence others use Christianity to find worth. While the minority, who were in power, used Christianity or God or religion, as a tool to assert power over the masses. However, in doing so they themselves at times where trapped by the same snare they were using to trap others. For Nietzsche, it was fine for the uberman (those in power) to use God as a construct to dominate the masses but not for them to be enslaved by such a “prehistoric” concept. In his book The Gay Science he declares God to be dead and gives a mandate to those destined for power.
After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too (Nietzsche, 1974, P108).

Religion could and would confine the use of power so therefore had to be expunged from the uberman of each generation.
The effect of this philosophy is it has given rise to the notion that truth is often used to control or manipulate people. This is a philosophy that Foucault would pick up on a century later and become a key part of his interpretation of how truth is used to assert power over the masses- a theory currently embraced by many social scientists. Such a vantage point has played a huge role in the skepticism many people have of any truth based assertions. It has helped to formulate a culture that would make everything relative in order to avoid the possible corruption of truth as a vehicle to maintain power. Sept. 11th further enforced this view in many people’s minds as they saw fundamental Muslims attack the World Trade Center because they believed their conception of the world to be superior, therefore they were trying to destroy others who did not believe like they did.
Augustine would agree that people have used truth claims in destructive ways; however, he would argue that we cannot avoid truth claims. He would state that when Nietzsche says there are no valid truth claims that in and of itself is a truth claim. Truth and faith in God are inseparable for Augustine as he states in the City of God:
“When, then, a man lives according to the truth, he lives not according to himself, but according to God; for He was God who said, "I am the truth." When, therefore, man lives according to himself -- that is, according to man, not according to God -- assuredly he lives according to a lie; not that man himself is a lie, for God is his author and creator, who is certainly not the author and creator of a lie, but because man was made upright, that he might not live according to himself, but according to Him that made him -- in other words, that he might do His will and not his own; (p.445)

This truth orders all things just as the laws of physics order the way objects will respond to gravity and force. Augustine believes that with and only with the truth of God will a person become a good ruler. Augustine then goes on to show how God’s truth would create such a person:
“if they make their power the handmaid of His majesty by using it for the greatest possible extension of His worship; if they fear, love, worship God; if more than their own they love that kingdom in which they are not afraid to have partners; if they are slow to punish, ready to pardon; if they apply that punishment as necessary to government and defense of the republic, and not in order to gratify their own enmity; if they grant pardon, not that iniquity may go unpunished, but with the hope that the transgressor may amend his ways; if they compensate with the lenity of mercy and the liberality of benevolence for whatever severity they may be compelled to decree; if their luxury is as much restrained as it might have been unrestrained; if they prefer to govern depraved desires rather than any nation whatever; and if they do all these things, not through ardent desire of empty glory, but through love of eternal felicity, not neglecting to offer to the true God, who is their God, for their sins, the sacrifices of humility, contrition, and prayer (P.178).”

This is then Augustine’s measure of a just rule one that is guided by and subservient to not an internally invented or reasoned truth but rather the revealed truth of God.
Such a definition of leadership is the predecessor of servant leadership that is advocated by Ken Blanchard and Phil Hodges or Robert Greenleaf today. Leaders that exercised this sort of power would see truth as something that does not attempt to keep people infantile but rather challenges them to grow up. It is a truth that does not seek to control people as much as to liberate them from narrow mindedness and selfish action. A person following this philosophy would not try to use coercive power unless absolutely necessary to maintain order. Instead they would restrain their own self interest for that of the greater good .
Interestingly despite these vastly different perspectives Augustine and Nietzsche echo each other about the impact that pride has on the individual and their ethics. Nietzsche states that we are too insecure to handle the truth in his book Beyond Good and Evil. “I have done that says my memory. I cannot have done that says my pride (p.80)”. When this argument occurs we revise our memory as pride always wins out. Augustine argues a similar vein when he states in his book Confessions:
“And it gratified my pride to be free from blame and, after I had committed any fault, not to acknowledge that I had done any,--" that Thou mightiest heal my soul because it had sinned against Thee;" but I loved to excuse it, and to accuse something else which was with me, but was not I. But assuredly it was wholly I, and my impiety had divided me against myself; and that sin was all the more incurable in that I did not deem myself a sinner (P.84)

The application for this ethic is both simple and hard. People are always revising history to flatter their conception of themselves. As President Kennedy, uttered famously after the Bay of Pigs invasion “Success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan.” Therefore as a person the challenge becomes having others that can rebuke you and hold you accountable. Making sure that when mistakes are made one ultimately owns up without attempting to blame or pass responsibility elsewhere. As a Christian owning mistake and sharing success must be a mantra.
Nietzsche ethic influenced perhaps most famously Hitler as he viewed himself as the uberman, a person whose will to power should not be restrained by conviction or guilt. However, his influence continues to pervade and influence modern culture. His ethic would justify the sorting mechanism of schools, would give credence to the idea if it “feels good do it”, and perhaps must frighteningly leads to the loss of conviction and feeling that there should be no conviction in modern morals. Augustine’s ethic perhaps is best preserved in the parts of the non-western church where many still find his insistence on revelation and his critique of reason valid.
Most of western society has followed the lead of Kant and held both Nietzsche and Augustine to be wrong in their critique of Reason. Reason is the supreme way to determine one’s course of action according to the west, the idea of revelation seems too messy to most westerners. After all whose revelation should we use? Yet, as Augustine and Nietzsche show us, that same critique could be applied to reason. Perhaps Socrates was right in that there are external rights and wrongs that lie outside a person. Perhaps a better question is if reason does not fully function as promised where can we find the foundation to build our ethic? Maybe if we seek we shall find rather then the traditional role of abandoning the search altogether. This might be the strongest legacy that a combined Augustine and Nietzsche ethical perspective gives us.

Interesting choice of words

I have to say that I have delved into this discussion today and gotten a ridiculously small amount of work done. But, such is a luxury of running your own business.

The point I'd like to bring up (I'd really like to post it at some point rather than have it on a comment page) is about Richard Dawkins' series called "The Root of All Evil?". I've compiled a good handful of responses to this presentation, but I'll bring up just one here, and that has to do with the very title of the videos (you can see them if you Google "the God Delusion"). By invoking the word "evil" Dawkins opens up an interesting can, in my opinion. I looked up the word in the American Heritage Dictionary and it does not have an exclusive spiritual bent to it. It does describe it as meaning, generally, bad. However, I feel, though I cannot prove this, that in our modern context, even globally, most people would either overtly claim some spiritual aspect of "badness" in their personal definition of evil, and if not overtly than they would not deny it if you gave a definition that included the spiritual aspect. Now, as the atheistic gospel authors, Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, might claim, there may be genes present in unintelligent humans that predispose them to a belief in the supernatural/spiritual realm. So, potentially, I'm talking out of my own genetic inadequacies. But, for what it's worth, spiritual activity has not been discussed here. Invoking the name of Jesus Christ for healing or exorcism or comfort works (I can give you personal accounts if you would like, though I am hesitant because I believe revelation is sometimes a private thing). The problem here is that this is only defensible scientifically in a marginal sense. For example, people who attend religious congregations on a regular basis tend to live longer (and happier, I believe?) than those who do not. There is research to show also that prayer in general (meaning not necessarily to one specific God, but for other people) by people who don't even know one who is sick has been demonstrated to increase the likelihood that the sick will get well, or better.

While it is clear we are inseparable from the animal kingdom in nearly every way, can't we say conclusively that the capacity of the human mind, and the capability of its individuals and communities to affect change in the world far (I can't think of a better word!) exceeds that of any other species on the planet? I think, then, the argument by the so-called four horsemen, or maybe just a few of them, would be that all of the denigration we humans have managed to carry out on the natural world is a direct result of the lessers-of-us' predisposition to believe in a God whose existence we cannot prove, or at least as a result of being angry with other people who do not believe the same.

I think the notion that there is no spiritual realm is the most dangerous of them all. To me, it's a bit silly, as has already been concluded on this blog from time to time, to try and prove something which cannot be proven or try to convince someone with reason that does not translate well to the other's perspective.

Paul, I believe the one thing that still remains in your framework as a possible reason to believe the Gospel (the good news of Christ and his promises kept) is fundamentally the only thing that really matters: the upside-down nature of the Kingdom which, as Robb has conveyed, puts the worthless shoulder to shoulder with the "worthy", as every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. The thing about this is that it is extremely exclusive of any other conceivable pathway to God (whether your God is God or Reason). It says that Jesus is the only way to the Truth, the point that we will know everything we long to know, as God does. But what is truly remarkable about this is that no one, actually, is excluded who will claim Jesus' promise for themselves. That's right where humility is foundational.

Back to the spiritual. I believe that battle is waging. And I believe that reason (or some version of it) is fighting to disconnect us with the spiritual realm and, therefore, a deeper and stronger connection with each other and (I believe) our Creator. And I have evidence, if you'll believe it, that that is the case. And Jesus' name and the mention of his blood are the only things that protect us from the temptation to believe in a reasonable world.

Augstine and Nietzche on Reason

This is in response to Paul's post my view on reason as seen through Augustine and Nietzche:
In Saint Augustine and Friedrich Nietzsche, one finds two well respected philosophers whom have oppositional ethics. Nietzsche after all, famously declared God dead and Saint Augustine based his entire ethic on the supremacy of God. With that in my mind I recall the words of a one of my undergraduate professors who stated opposite well articulated theories when compared and contrasted yield some of the best fruit.
With Descartes Cogito ergo sum the he western world dived into reason as supreme way to sort out one’s ethic. Augustine and Nietzsche respected reason but saw it as limited. Nietzsche states in his book Genealogy of Morals: “let us beware of the tentacles of such contradictory notions as "pure reason”," absolute knowledge," "absolute intelligence” (Nietzsche, 1956, P. 255). He argued that reason was limited because a person perspective influenced their reason. Nietzsche even challenged the logic of cause and effect in his book The Gay Science:
Cause and effect: such a duality probably never exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing it. The suddenness with which many effects stand out misleads us; actually, it is sudden only for us. In this moment of suddenness there are an infinite number of processes which elude us. An intellect that could see cause and effect as a continuum and a flux and not, as we do, in terms of an arbitrary division and dismemberment, would repudiate the concept of cause and effect and deny all conditionality. (Nietzsche, 1974 P.173)

Yet Nietzsche despite questioning the supremacy of reason thinks it a necessary tool. For example when questioning religion he asserts, “One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements” (Nietzsche's Daybreak, P.89). This tension between reason and the limits of reason is something that continues to rise up in Nietzsche’s work. Nietzsche will state in one paragraph that the, “The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it” and in another “(we have) with blind desire, passion or fear, and abandoned ourselves to the bad habits of illogical thinking” (Nietzsche, 2002, P.16)
Nietzsche’s resistance to reason is that reason might lead to truth or an absolute, something Nietzsche was absolutely opposed to. As Nietzsche states”
What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all... (Nietzsche, The Viking Portable Nietzsche 1954, p. 46-47)

Reason must be limited and in Nietzsche’s paradigm one would know reason has gone astray if it thought it ascertained truth. Truth for Nietzsche holds danger because it can lead to conviction- “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies” (Nietzsche, P. 483). Conviction in turn leads ultimately to feelings of guilt. For Nietzsche a guilty conscious is a sign of sickness because a guilty conscious will so weaken a healthy man that he will become unhealthy. In fact, Nietzsche goes so far as to saying his bock On the Genealogy of Morals that a guilty conscious is “man’s greatest danger” (p. 122). Therefore the greatest truth for Nietzsche is that there are no absolutes. All absolutes are merely constructs originated because in order for man to turn civil, he had to contain his instincts, something Nietzsche terms “the internalization of man” (p. 84). This internalization creates a “serious illness” because it turns man against his natural instincts.
Augustine would find agreement with Nietzsche that reason has its limits. In fact, Augustine is famous for making the statement “Crede, ut intelligas, Believe in order that you may understand". Reason for Augustine is contained in time and therefore it is material. Material is mutable and changeable and thus not eternal or error free. For example in the City of God Augustine states:
For it is one thing, by the aid of things temporal and changeable, to conjecture the changes that may occur in time, and to modify such things by one's own will and faculty -- and this is to a certain extent permitted to the demons -- it is another thing to foresee the changes of times in the eternal and immutable laws of God, which live in His wisdom, and to know the will of God, the most infallible and powerful of all causes, by participating in His spirit; and this is granted to the holy angels by a just discretion. (Augustine, 1993, P. 299)

God’s law’s are however, eternal and immutable and thus from a foundation deeper then
what humans can reason. This does not mean that Augustine does not value reason; he in fact makes the statement, “[Even] If I am mistaken, I am.” In making such a statement he predates Descartes and becomes the first Western philosopher to utilize what it termed an argument by analogy: “there are bodies external to mine that behave as I behave and that appear to be nourished as mine is nourished; so, by analogy, I am justified in believing that these bodies have a similar mental life to mine” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). However, unlike Kant and Descartes he believes in the supremacy of revelation even to arguments by analogy seeing that our understanding is quite limited. In Confessions, he states that to assume that a human can understands the mind of God and all it complexities is like thinking one can contain all the oceans in a teacup. Therefore humans as limited and finite, can only reason from a finite perspective and therefore have a flawed logic.

I liked this quote and thought I would share it (especially since it looks like Paul is into quotes too!) (love ya babe) :-)

Human relations are built on feeling, not on reason or knowledge. And feeling is not an exact science; like all spiritual qualities, it has the vagueness of greatness about it. - Amelia E. Barr

Reposting: How Then Do we Deal with Faith?

Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying.
-Martin Luther -

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
-Martin Luther-

Reason is the enemy of faith.
-Martin Luther-

In the last year, several leading voices in the world of atheism have put forth best-selling books to the general public that attempt to coerce people to embrace a world without faith, a world without religion or at worst a life in that same light. These include the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. They claim to have had a positive reception by many people living in the closet afraid to proclaim what they really believe, most often out of fear of the implications for family and relationships. These authors have varying takes on the what they would hope for the world in regards to religion. Dennet and Dawkins yearn for a world absolutely without religion or faith. They believe it does more harm towards enlightenment and progress than good. Sam Harris has a more nuanced desire for a world without Dogma. Although he denies the supernatural nature of spiritual experience he does not deny the experience itself. Hitchens although a self-proclaimed anti-theist who hates everything about religion would hate to see the ultimate demise of religion and faith as this would be an end to a source of satisfying his needs as a contrarian. Ultimately, though they all agree that faith is the antithesis to progress and actually is something very dangerous to us all, even those who are part of the faithful.

All of these men are what people would label as very extreme. Why do people like this make it to the top? Are they the cream that rises (they most likely believe so, i.e. Brights) to the top? Part of the reason for their popularity is that people respond to extremism. Moderation is boring to be quite frank and doesn't really challenge a person to reflect. Moderation--perhaps tolerance is a better word--is more likely to induce sleep or the closing of a book than to illicit a visceral response. This is why hyperbole speaks so much more to our senses in a poem or in the words of Christ than the mere status quo drivel of age old dogma. I, myself, have endured a number of heart wrenching confrontations with reality all of which, I believe, made me reflect sincerely on my beliefs. Not because they were slightly contrary to my belief or a permutation thereof, but because they turned my belief system upside down. Often times, my reactions were "how dare you say such a thing" or "you don't understand where I am coming from" or "do you realize the implications of what you are saying are for me?" or "if you have experienced what I have you wouldn't be saying such things". All though these emotional responses are real they don't lend anything to the truth--one way or another--to what I believe or to what someone else claims to believe. All this means is that I am ready to put up a fight. An example based in the tangible world would be of an adopted child. The adopted child may be raised to believe he/she is the real son or daughter of his/her parents. In this child's mind, his family is no different than the next. His parents are real and conceived him just as any other child. They are connected by blood. At some point in time, the parents may decide to let the child know the truth of their child's past. The initial reaction might be quite emotional and even reject what seems impossibly true. The reaction might be fear of losing the essence of his existence. Might he feel as though his identity has in an instant become nebulous or less tangible. Is the child to actually believe that he is the product of people in his past of which he knows nothing. This emotional reaction does not speak to the truth of the situation. Once these emotions pass, a more rational peaceful affect will arise which can take the facts and finally process them for what they are, truth or fiction.

Of course the nature of the facts in this situation moves one more easily towards truth. What about when it is our faith that is questioned? What if your faith is exposed as the adopting parents? How many people can honestly set their faith aside for even an instant to see if its dissenters hold water? Wouldn't the very nature of doing this mean you didn't have faith? But what is the reason we can't lay the faith to the side even for an instant? Is it because of fear of the implications of doing such a thing? Is it the fear of the consequences if you decide not to pick it back up? If it is fear, then is it really faith we are talking about?

What is our initial feeling when someone tells us something that is totally contrary to what he have been told by people we love? Do we not feel angry, driven to fight? Is this reaction bad? I am not sure this reaction can be avoided. The reaction itself, however, speaks only to the truth of your emotions or feelings, not the challenge. What do you do then? If you place faith aside to consider the questions honestly, you are a blasphemer. If you don't place faith aside to consider the question you can't know if you are being honest with yourself. It is almost as if faith itself is a virtue. How so? What does it achieve? If you embrace this virtue what are you left with? Where do you draw the line? How do you hold others of contradicting faith accountable?

Many people of faith are quite reasonable. Some are highly reasonable. In fact, they may not see themselves as anything but reasonable. Despite this, however reasonable one may describe oneself, where faith begins reason may end or at best be perverted. In the end, I fear, as difficult as it may be to swallow, faith may not be amenable to reason. Even the reformist Martin Luther himself--trained in law and theology using reason to assimilate his ideas that formed the foundation of the reformation--seemed to know this hard to avoid truth. Some will find this difficult to hear because the truth of it is quite painful. It is a claim that the faithful are without reason if not all of the time at least some of the time. Where does that leave a person? Wondering if they have really thought things through.

Authority outside ourselves

Tolerance is often defined as letting everyone decide truth for themselves and respecting that truth no matter what it is. Who becomes the true authority when this definition of tolerance is held too? Is it not the person themselves then who ultimately decided there own moral code- what is right? What is wrong? This is a role that in most societies is left up to the society itself, in others up to God himself and still others to some ruler or authority. However, tolerance I think fits American culture which stresses the individual because it invites that individual to become their own God- make up all the rules and their is nothing with any authority that can then contradict you. Nothing outside of yourself can tell you something is right or wrong. The problem with this is that we are finite, limited creatures who do not and cannot ever know all details, circumstances, knowledge of a particular situation- heck we do not even understand ourselves and thus the need for counselors and psychotherapist- and so therefore cannot make wise decisions in and of ourselves without guidance. The Christian God on the other hand as an omniscient and omnipresent being does know every thing and if this is true can make a decision with all the information in mind both past, present and future. That is probably why the book of wisdom Proverbs states close to the very beginning - Trust not in our own understanding... . Therefore tolerance and the biblical approach are opposed to each other. Tolerance invites one to have faith in oneself- you and your wisdom are the supreme guide. Biblical wisdom would say the opposite. Thus Christianity sees a need for scripture to have something outside yourself that can contradict you. Robb

Religious Tolerance

I was thinking today about my frustrations over trying to arrive at an internal consensus on where I stand on things. Things being religion, politics, morals, etc. I am beginning to wonder if I should just let go and put on the cruise control or if I should keep up the self-adversarial approach as I analyze my beliefs. For some intuitive reason this approach doesn't sit well with me.

I think I know where I stand on reason and my belief in God, but I don't find that it translates very well to interacting with people or living out life in the real world. The odd thing? I felt the same when I believed in the absolute truth of the Bible Coincidence? Probably not as they are both somewhat fundamental in their nature and approach to life. Honest? Yes, I think these fundamental beliefs are honest ways to approach life but they are by far more incendiary and unsettling. Why unsettling? Because they are mutually exclusive of one another. They are diametrically opposed. By nature they cannot coexist in harmony.

I then thought. What is the other option? How about tolerance. I know what I believe; why should I feel like others should feel the same way about it? I was almost comfortable with this until I related it to religious tolerance. By religious/faith tolerance, I mean having beliefs but being willing to let others have their own beliefs without any sort of cognitive dissonance about the whole thing. I think the bumper sticker I have seen around town that captures this best is the one that says Coexist (using the different religious symbols to spell it out). Sounds cozy doesn't it? Like a couch full of pillows and warm blankets on cold rainy day. So what's the problem? I think implicit in this tolerance is some acknowledgment that you are possibly if not most likely wrong about what you believe which is why you wouldn't stake anything on it, in this case conflict. It seems to me this point has to be conceded since so many religious beliefs are at their core exclusive of one another. As soon as a person embraces tolerance they deny to some degree that exclusive nature of their belief system. What is this then? Is it not simply saying that the core of your faith or religious belief is mistaken? If so are you not redefining your belief? Are you justified in doing this? Are you not just creating your own new religion or faith of convenience? Where do you draw the line then for what is right or wrong about your faith?

Is it possible then that the fundamentalist approach whether religious, secularist, or atheistic may be the most honest attempt at being consistent even to the point of fallacy.

Chris Hedges on Sam Harris' view of Religion

This full "debate" can be be seen on You Tube in 9 parts. This footage is of part 3, I believe. The debate represents someone not of Faith (Sam Harris) defending the idea that religion (i.e. Faith) really plays no beneficial role and its extinctions would do no harm. The other person (Hedges) a man of Faith and Religion (but in the vaguest sense possible, I would say) defends the existence of Faith in our world. I personally found it nice to see an intelligent person like Hedges trying to ground Harris in the real world (an impossible task). I don't know he was given ample time to argue his points or perhaps he was just more succinct in his choice of words. I do understand Harris' frustration with Faith. I don't know, though, that he can reconcile it with what is happening on the ground in our world. I sense a cognitive dissonance about his beliefs especially when he claims that these topics keep him awake at night. I personally feel his dissonance is related to the fact that as much as he hates dogma, he is, in a way, promoting a potentially harmful dogma himself. I will add that these debates because of the vastness of the topic have a very difficult time staying on topic.

I recently ran across this quote by John Ortberg and really liked it:

Faith is not simply holy beliefs. Many people, when they think about Faith, think, "I believe that God exists, or that Scripture is accurate, or love is the greatest virtue." But, at its core, faith is not simply the belief in a statement; it puts trust in a person. ...What do you do when you trust somebody? You take a risk. It could be small, or it could be big. I go to a restaurant that you recommend. I read a book, because you tell me that it is good. I tell you a secret, and then I see if you keep it confidential. I invite you to be a partner in a business deal. Are you going to burn me? I ask you to be my friend. Are you going to betray me?


When I trust you, I take a little piece of myself—my stuff, my money, my time, my heart—and I put it in your hands. And then…I’m vulnerable. Then you respond, and I find out whether or not you are trustworthy and dependable. I give you the gift of my trust, and you give me the gift of your faithfulness. When that happens, trust grows deeper. This is key—what it means to be a person. We were made to trust. It goes on forever.

There can be no intimacy without trust. "

Topic to WRite On

I would be curious to hear people's comments that might shed light positive or negative on why Senator Obama doesn't where the US Flag pin.

A little Break

I am going to be taking a week or so off to study for finals. So, don't think I am ignoring your posts. I will read but probably won't have time to respond to posts. Read you in a few.

Living questions

I've been reading this book with compiled writings of Henri Nouwen - "Spiritual Direction". One of the beginning chapters is titled, "Who will answer my questions?"

I absolutely love what he says in this chapter. He has a quote from Rainer Maria Rilke (not sure who he/she is):

'I want to beg you as much as I can...to be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves...Do not now seek answers which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer...Take whatever comes with great trust, and if only it comes out of your will, out of some need of your innermost being, take it upon yourself and hate nothing.'

Nouwen goes on to say:

"When God enters into the center of our lives to unmask our illusion of possessing final solutions and to disarm us with always deeper questions, we will not necessarily have an easier or simpler life, but certainly a life that is honest, courageous, and marked with the ongoing search for truth. Sometimes, in living the questions, answers are found. More often, as our questions and issues are tested and mature in solitude, the questions may simply dissolve."

These two passages have been some of my favorites lately. And I LOVE this book. Would highly recommend it!

Peace

I'm here!

No highly insightful blog from me as of yet. Just wanted to let you know I'm here and reading along. Thanks for sharing and opening back up the blog Paul.

What is up with the Pope?

I don't know how to process the Pope?

Some people say he is the single most powerful person in the world! He spoke at the United Nations this past week. While at the UN he stated that he believes strongly in religious freedom. What exactly does that mean for him? Is he saying that any religion or belief is game? It almost feels patronizing when someone of dogmatic belief states that he/she believes everyone should have the freedom to believe whatever they want [even though they are totally wrong].

How does someone who thinks his words/edicts carry the same weight as if God himself --as if the spokesperson for God here on earth--get to speak to the UN anyways? My guess is that if I met a guy on the street who claimed that he spoke for God I would classify him as delusional, but for some reason the Pope doesn't get this title. The Pope believes that when he eats bread during communion it turns into the real flesh of Christ and vino the real blood of Christ. The convincing proof for this? No one walks down the street saying these beliefs out loud. Why not?

So many people have beliefs that others don't hold to. If we restricted people of faith from saying anything this would most likely be a quiet world or at least U.S. In the case of the Pope, however, his very identity is that of the Pope and everything he says is 'coming from the Pope'. This is much different than say the Catholic believer who works for some organization that feeds impoverished children. The identity within which that believer functions is as an employee of the organization not an employee, if you will, of God. So when this person go to speak before congress on the issues facing America regarding starving children she will be heard as the advocate for children not a Catholic who is weighing in on this issue.



Here is a quote from his speech I found interesting.

"The victims of hardship and despair, whose human dignity is violated with impunity, become easy prey to the call to violence, and they can then become violators of peace,"

This sounds touching possibly insightful, doesn't it.

First of all, shouldn't the Pope have a talk with God about violating peace by sending billions of people to hell. Second, how can one be a violator of peace when that peace is in the context of economic depression or oppression? Maybe they are the adjudicators of oppression? What is peace under false pretenses? Isn't it just a quiet hell?

Now why does he feel this way about these oppressed people? Is it because he cares about protecting himself or is it because he cares about the victims of hardship and despair? Of whom does he speak in this quote? Most likely Islamic radicals, but alas, we know based on evidence that many violent activists have been highly educated. Let us hope that he doesn't forget about violence between Christians in certain African nations that he claims to have a heart for.

The Pope doesn't believe contraceptives should be passed out for fear of stopping one of God's children from being born [with AIDS]. He says he has concern for Africa. Do his actions really speak to this? Does tying the hands of the nuns who work with the people to prevent the spread of AIDS work to attenuate abject poverty and suffering?

The Pope advocates for peaceful strategies for addressing conflict. Is this based on reason or faith? If on faith, why should I listen to him when someone says the exact opposite also in the name of faith. My point here is that when you make edicts on how the world should work and those edicts are based on faith in a random religion many questions arise about the validity of what this person has to offer everyone. Also, I can't help but wonder that the reason this man is given the time of day has nothing to do with anything substantive he has to offer (aside from power over a certain group of people) but the fact that he represents a religion that is intimately connected to the recent history of much of the world manhandled by the Catholic church. So what is this opportunity to speak at the UN? Some sort of concession? Why do we give such credence to the words of the Pope?

Is it possible to blog incorrectly?

I'm not a blogger, but I thought that I would add to the conversation since I was invited. I would characterize myself as a Christian with strong faith, but weak follow-through (in that, I have the tendency to make my own decisions and trust that I know what will make me happy/fulfill me). But I have a hard time with conversations about God or faith that remain abstract. I have to ground it in my life experience. So, I thought I would share something that I wrote recently for a course assignment. We were asked to write our personal manifesto (a public statement of intentions and principles). The process was difficult for me (though one I highly recommend) since I felt that declarative statements are hard to commit to. And though I am supposedly an adult now, I feel a bit unformed. Right now I feel it is important to define myself not in opposition to something, but for something.  The structure of it reflects my fragmented thoughts, but hopefully it will add to the conversation. 

Whom can I ask what I came to make happen in this world? (P. Neruda)

1. The self is already collective.

Art is a social practice, the space between otherness and connection.

Who is my neighbor?

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. Matthew 25: 42-43

My life is wrapped up in the least of these.

Will you enter in?

Will you be passersby?

Will you walk alongside?

Will you let yourself be carried?

Remember:

Melissa, from the trees beneath the trees

The smile from the man crossing the street (you are not invisible)

Sitting quietly next to Megan

Listening to Mom talk about her quilts

"... you and me both involved. We (with a capital W sometimes include(s), other times exclude(s) me." (Trinh T. Minh-ha)

2. We are authors of our own lives.

Art: experience is interpreted.

Forms, signs, objects, and actions produce relationships, create subjectivity.

One day the stories inside us will become a public resistance that will remake the world.

3. Place: City

Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Jeremiah 29:7

And when you change the landscape is it with bare hands or with gloves (P. Neruda)

Just to Clear a Few Things Up

I have invited quite a few people to view this blog and I am not sure where it will go, to be honest. I welcome all and hope that many fruitful discussions or posts will be generated. My hope is that this blog will propagate the use of reason to look at how we live our lives and what we choose to guide our lives. For many reason seems sterile and boring, possibly useless, but I can't say that I agree. If you are new to the blog you may wish to look at the past blogs just to give context, but I don't believe it is absolutely necessary.

I started this blog over a year and a half ago. The blog was pretty intense to begin with and within a few months I declared a moratorium and closed access while I adjusted to my forming self. My last blog in April of 2007, which declared the moratorium, declared that I had not reached any form as of yet as the caterpillar in its cocoon. Well, I am not a butterfly as of yet but I am pretty close. Many may be confused by my past posts, but know that now I am much different than in the past as can be seen by my attempt at describing myself in the sidebar.

I do encourage you, however, to peruse through my posts from last year as they capture the movement of a person from a moderate religious world view (I know some of you hate that word) to a world view that is very much less focused on the necessity of an existing God as a guiding force in this life.

My hope for this website is that we use reason as the starting premise for discussions. If you want to include less rational discussions or popular figures as centerpieces for discussion this is fine but please be sure to explain what the point is. If you find yourself to be one who finds less value in rational thought, well, then I suppose you can still post, but I don't, frankly, see the point of discussing something that is not arguable.

The Moderate View

I myself over the years have been what many would term a moderate Christian (some maybe think liberal). I had specific beliefs about Christ and salvation but not to the degree that I could bash or exclude someone else's belief. I had faith that Christ was real and that somehow even though many contradictions in God's nature seem apparent in the Bible somehow everything works itself out according to God's plan. I even believed that belief in evolution was amenable to belief in God, more specifically Christianity. I was actually quite proud of my moderation in belief. I felt my response to the world was just, tolerant, rational, and seeded in common sense. What was to dislike?

I have to wonder now, though, whether the moderate belief system is actually more dangerous than the most extreme of beliefs. Why do I say this? Well extreme systems of belief are easy targets for hate or dislike. On the other hand, some of the greatest people I know and best friends I have practice moderate forms of belief in God. So...what's the problem. Let's love the moderates.

The issue goes back to faith. Even the person with moderate beliefs will acknowledge that a large component of what they cling to or believe in is seeded in faith. So, of course, the insidious conflict arises from faith. Due to the nature of faith, if I accept these most tolerable, loving, congenial, philanthropic individuals and the faith they hold to, I must also accept the faith of very intolerable, extremist, non-loving individuals. Accepting these moderate versions of faith would take the wind out of the sails of my arguments against those extremists who use faith as their very weapon against reason to uphold their ideals of intolerance and violence.

How do we deal with faith?

Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying.
-Martin Luther -

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
-Martin Luther-

Reason is the enemy of faith.
-Martin Luther-

In the last year, several leading voices in the world of atheism have put forth best-selling books to the general public that attempt to coerce people to embrace a world without faith, a world without religion or at worst a life in that same light. These include the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. They claim to have had a positive reception by many people living in the closet afraid to proclaim what they really believe most often out of fear of the implications for family and relationships. These authors have varying takes on the what they would hope for the world in regards to religion. Dennet and Dawkins yearn for a world absolutely without religion or faith. They believe it does more harm towards enlightenment and progress than good. Sam Harris has a more nuanced desire for a world without Dogma. Although he denies the supernatural nature of spiritual experience he does not deny the experience itself. Hitchens although a self-proclaimed anti-theist who hates everything about religion would hate to see the ultimate demise of religion and faith as this would be an end to a source of satisfying his needs as a contrarian. Ultimately, though they all agree that faith is the antithesis to progress and actually is something very dangerous to us all, even those who are part of the faithful.

All of these men are what people would label as very extreme. Why do people like this make it to the top? Are they the cream that rises (they most likely believe so, i.e. Brights) to the top? Part of the reason for their popularity is that people respond to extremism. Moderation is boring to be quite frank and doesn't really challenge a person to reflect. Moderation--perhaps tolerance is a better word--is more likely to induce sleep or the closing of a book than to illicit a visceral response. This is why hyperbole speaks so much more to our senses in a poem or in the words of Christ than the mere status quo drivel of age old dogma. I, myself, have endured a number of heart wrenching confrontations with reality all of which, I believe, made me reflect sincerely on my beliefs. Not because they were slightly contrary to my belief or a permutation thereof, but because they turned my belief system upside down. Often times, my reactions were "how dare you say such a thing" or "you don't understand where I am coming from" or "do you realize the implications of what you are saying are for me?" or "if you have experienced what I have you wouldn't be saying such things". All though these emotional responses are real they don't lend anything to the truth--one way or another--to what I believe or to what someone else claims to believe. All this means is that I am ready to put up a fight. An example based in the tangible world would be of an adopted child. The adopted child may be raised to believe he/she is the real son or daughter of his/her parents. In this child's mind, his family is no different than the next. His parents are real and conceived him just as any other child. They are connected by blood. At some point in time, the parents may decide to let the child know the truth of their child's past. The initial reaction might be quite emotional and even reject what seems impossibly true. The reaction might be fear of losing the essence of his existence. Might he feel as though his identity has in an instant become nebulous or less tangible. Is the child to actually believe that he is the product of people in his past of which he knows nothing. This emotional reaction does not speak to the truth of the situation. Once these emotions pass, a more rational peaceful affect will arise which can take the facts and finally process them for what they are, truth or fiction.

Of course the nature of the facts in this situation moves one more easily towards truth. What about when it is our faith that is questioned? What if your faith is exposed as the adopting parents? How many people can honestly set their faith aside for even an instant to see if its dissenters hold water? Wouldn't the very nature of doing this mean you didn't have faith? But what is the reason we can't lay the faith to the side even for an instant? Is it because of fear of the implications of doing such a thing? Is it the fear of the consequences if you decide not to pick it back up? If it is fear, then is it really faith we are talking about?

What is our initial feeling when someone tells us something that is totally contrary to what he have been told by people we love? Do we not feel angry, driven to fight? Is this reaction bad? I am not sure this reaction can be avoided. The reaction itself, however, speaks only to the truth of your emotions or feelings, not the challenge. What do you do then? If you place faith aside to consider the questions honestly, you are a blasphemer. If you don't place faith aside to consider the question you can't know if you are being honest with yourself. It is almost as if faith itself is a virtue. How so? What does it achieve? If you embrace this virtue what are you left with? Where do you draw the line? How do you hold others of contradicting faith accountable?

Many people of faith are quite reasonable. Some are highly reasonable. In fact, they may not see themselves as anything but reasonable. Despite this, however reasonable one may describe oneself, where faith begins reason may end or at best be perverted. In the end, I fear, as difficult as it may be to swallow, faith may not be amenable to reason. Even the reformist Martin Luther himself--trained in law and theology using reason to assimilate his ideas that formed the foundation of the reformation--seemed to know this hard to avoid truth. Some will find this difficult to hear because the truth of it is quite painful. It is a claim that the faithful are without reason if not all of the time at least some of the time. Where does that leave a person? Wondering if they have really thought things through.

Back in the Saddle Again

My hope is, in the near future, to revive, to resurrect, if you will, this once breathing organism of a site. I am not sure what the nature of the content will be, but I am confident that the focus will not be solely on the topic of religion, although I am sure it will come up from time to time. I hope to write about other people which I have read in an attempt to revisit my views about the world. The rules of the website will be the same and religious expository is welcome. I will say though, that I will no longer be writing from the perspective of a believer in God. That is not to say that I have solidified myself as an atheist or agnostic (although this is closest to where I stand now) but it is to say my perspective will be different than in the past. I hope that you will comment and post in the future.