a dogmatist's rules of engagement

A Dogmatist's Guide for Engaging a Critical Thinker:

A. The first rule for any dogmatic believer, whether your belief(s) be religious, political, economic, social, racial or cultural is this: you are right! But because you are right, you - and people like you - are a target for evil people in the world that are jealous of your clarity and wisdom. These jealous people, we'll call them "critics", want nothing more than to steal your peace and joy from life. But they can only do that if you allow them to make you doubt that you are right... so never doubt it. 

B. You have every right to whatever beliefs, opinions, or values that seem best to you. But because your beliefs are the right ones to have, you have a special right to tell everyone you come into contact about these beliefs - in fact, it is your duty to spread the truth to them! In the course of sharing your beliefs, you will run into a lot of people that already believe like you do. Make sure that you surround yourself with those people - they're the key to your strength and convictions. 

C. Sometimes, however, you'll run into people that have different beliefs. They believe just as much in what they think is true, but - of course - it isn't true because it isn't what you believe. If you're feeling generous, you can tell them how much you respect their beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, and they will probably tell you the same thing. But never forget, you are right - not them.

D. Every once in a while, though, you will run into someone that asks a lot of questions. People like this are very dangerous. When you try to tell them about your beliefs and how they are the right thing to believe, they will ask you all kinds of questions that you don't necessarily have the answers to. Don't panic! You're dealing with a "critical thinker", or a "critic" for short. Here's how you deal with a critic. 

1. A critic will ask you, "How do you know what you believe is the absolute truth?" Remind them that you know it because you believe it (duh!). Remember, if it wasn't true you wouldn't believe it because you only believe things that are true. 

2. The critic might then ask you, "But what if you're wrong?" You see what (s)he's doing? (S)he's trying to steal your soul by suggesting that you could be wrong! Refer to point "A": you are right. Simply remind the critic that a lot of people believe what you believe. You couldn't all be wrong! It is more likely that these critics, as an extreme minority, are the ones that have something wrong with them that, they can't simply accept the truth that is so obvious to most people. 

3. The critic may then ask you, "Ok. Well, where did you personally get these beliefs from?" Here are the acceptable answers to this question: your parents or family members, your place of worship or religious leader, your local congressman, one of your favorite television talk-show hosts or news pundits, one of your favorite musicians, an author or a radio show host. 

4. (S)he will ask you, "Where did that person get their information from?" This answer is much easier: a really old book, collection of writings, or a single document. This can be anything from Paul's Epistle to the Church at Rome, to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, to Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence", to Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto. The best answers are always the oldest writings, though, so use those first to discourage any further questions by the critic. 


5. The pestering critic, not knowing that it is rude to continue asking questions and disturbing you, might point out information in other books - sometimes even older than the one(s) you cited - that seems to make your belief seem unoriginal or even wrong. They might use statistical data, facts, or research. This can be very intimidating since you don't have anything like this to support your beliefs - not that you need them, because you don't! (S)he might then ask you what you think about that information and if that makes you wonder if you're as convinced as you were when you first started talking, pointing out contradictions or things that don't seem like they can be real. Remember, you cannot be wrong: you are right! But, you cannot win this fight. The sinister critic has baited you and is about to spring the trap! Whatever you do, do not try to answer his/her questions anymore but simply try to end the conversation. Here are the best ways to get rid of the critic. 


6. Appeal to his/her sense of reason and propriety: tell the critic that "this isn't the right time or place to have this conversation." If you can use the word "venue", do so - it will make you sound really smart to anyone else that may be listening. Also, it doesn't matter if your excuse is true or not - you're not trying to engage the critic anymore, you're simply trying to evade and get away. You now know that you're in a fight you can't win, which means that there are no rules for how you behave anymore. 


7. If that doesn't work, accuse the critic of being a bad person. Tell the critic that (s)he is "being a douchebag" or "a bitch". Oh, sure, they'll respond by saying that they're only trying to have a civil conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but don't let their hurt feelings stop you. Keep going on the offensive!


8. Tell the critic that you never wanted to have a conversation anyway. All you wanted to do was tell them what the true beliefs were. What the critic doesn't understand is that it is stupid for this process to be a two-way road. There is only one way: the truth! And you, not (s)he, that knows what the truth is so you should only be the one that can talk and make claims. But they went and ruined that chance! Not to mention that you don't care what they think anyway, because if it isn't what you think then it isn't true!


9. The critic will be offended or bewildered by your responses. Now's your chance to turn up the heat! Tell the critic that (s)he is a "traitor", a "heretic", and/or a "Communist". Remind them that they are what is wrong with your life and the country you live in. Tell them that they are probably going to "Hell", especially if they don't believe in it. That will teach them to question your beliefs! 


10. If it doesn't, threaten physical violence. Tell him/her that you are going to "kick their ass!" Most critics are physically puny people that can't defend themselves anyway, so this is the best way to shut them down completely. Even if they're not, most critics don't believe in "fighting" or "physical confrontation" which makes them losers. This is how you know they don't live in the "real world" like you do. Almost every critic will leave the conversation at this point. You've done your job - what needed to be done to defend your beliefs. 


11. If you feel that you have to get one last word in, make sure you tell the critic that you will pray for him/her so that they'll find the truth that you have. 


With these steps, you will finish every fight over opinions, beliefs and values that a critic starts - even if you don't "win" it. There is, however, one very serious danger in arguing with a critic: critical thinking is like a disease. When you come into contact with a critical thinker, there is a chance that they may get some of their disease in you without you noticing at first. We know this because almost every single critical thinker was - in the beginning - a very dedicated dogmatist that was infected with critical thinking while arguing with a critic. This is why, if you feel like you may be getting affected by a critic, you should just jump to step 10 and threaten violence. This limits your exposure and the chances that you'll ever become one of them. 


I hope you use this information wisely and always remember: you are right, they are wrong.

thoughts on the christian spiritual tradition

In a recent post on this blog, I stated two opinions about the nature of belief in general and the Christian religion in particular. A friend of mine sent me a message asking me to explain what I meant by them. His message read:

Can you explain [these ones] to me:
- "Belief, especially religious belief, is one of the only conventions in the human repertoire that will blatantly defy 'reality.' And no, that's not a good thing."
- "I'm not entirely sure that the Jesus talked about in Christian religious traditions is broadly-enough defined. In other words: Jesus is interpreted too narrowly for my tastes within most expressions of Christianity."

I will attempt to tackle these explanations as best as I can and I hope to satisfy the spirit of the request if not the actual request itself.

The first statement that I want to address is the one concerning belief. I've set out to explore - via this blog - the difference between beliefs, values, ideologies and their relationship to objective reality. Beliefs, as I've come to understand them, are based almost solely on assumptions. This is different from my understanding of knowledge insofar as knowledge is informed by commonly agreed-upon empirical facts. (At this point I could digress into a lengthy bit about the theory of knowledge, the Latin etymology for "facts" and classical skepticism, but I won't. Anyone wanting to understand more about how those three items relate to my previous statements can look those up for his/herself.) Let me explain, crudely, the difference between a belief and knowledge. "God created the Universe." This is a belief. "The world is round." This is knowledge.

Because I feel certain that I'll be interpreted this way, let me say very clearly: there is nothing wrong with having a belief. We all have them both despite and because of our expanding knowledge-base as a species. The problem that I have is when people take a belief, which is fine to have in its own right, and elevate it to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth." It is my opinion that beliefs enrich our lives most when they are kept in their place: as beliefs. Beliefs, however, because they are often elevated to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth" often cause believers to blatantly deny "reality" - the existence which can actually be confirmed and verified via empirically-derived factual knowledge.

I've gone round-and-round on this point almost two dozen times with friends, relatives and colleagues so pardon me as I return to it. The Book of Genesis is a beautiful collection of texts, narratives and traditions. It was (and continues to be) the basis for a number of traditions - when read literally - that blatantly defy what humans know about the Earth. The "heavens and the Earth" were not created in six, twenty-four hour periods. Humans know this. It isn't a guess. It isn't a belief. It is backed up by consistently validated, confirmed and verified facts. What's more is: these facts were originally discovered by committed and devout Christians whom, after having discovered them, did not become atheists or turn their back on Christianity but allowed this new information to expand and enrich their understanding of both the mundane and the divine. Holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis is every Christian, Jew and Muslim's right. It is, however, a profound example of how a belief leads people to blatantly defy reality. And no, I do not think that it is good for a person to deny a factually-informed "reality" for an assumption-informed belief. Especially when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of one at the zero-sum expense of the other.

Turning, now, to the question of the Jesus and his relation to mainstream American Christianity, I would like to first say that I, personally, believe there is something special about Jesus in human history. This belief is informed by several assumptions: a) he actually existed as a historical figure of which there is almost no extra-Biblical empirical verification that I am aware of, b) his life had any relationship to the narratives and texts which became the canonized New Testament of the Christian Bible and, c) that the authors of the previously mentioned New Testament texts are trustworthy hagiographers and worth giving the proverbial "benefit of the doubt." I feel that it is incumbent on me to state, very clearly, that I do not treat the New Testament as "authoritative", nor do I approach the texts uncritically. In my own exegetical endeavors, I have come to a number of conclusions that would - and have - angered a number of devoutly orthodox Christians. Most Christians I know believe that, while the original texts of the New Testament were penned by men, the words are actually the direct dictation of God. My research on this question has led me to conclude that at no point in the New Testament do any of the authors claim to have been directly dictated to, outside of the Book of Revelation, which has significant - and currently irresolvable - authenticity issues of its own. (Again, there is a temptation to digress into an explanation of Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3:16, but that will have to wait for another post if anyone is interested in hearing why it is not a claim of biblical divine dictatorship.)

What can be easily agreed upon by both the most devout and obstinate Christian and the most obstinate atheist is this: Jesus occupies an unprecedented place in human history. Major religious movements and traditions - as well as anti-religious movements and traditions - are devoted to him. Nearly everyone in Western society since him (or, at least, the birth of his movement) has been forced to think about him and come to some kind of understanding about him. Very few men, if anyone, have ever occupied this level of importance in human history: with all due respect given to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and any individual whose religious patron I have not referenced. The claim that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus" set off a firestorm of controversy for a reason! In Western tradition - perhaps in all human tradition - no one is, or has been, bigger than Jesus. As Saul Silver might claim: Jesus is "the apex of the vortex" of Western spirituality.

It is both because of this and despite this understanding that I believe that Jesus is "too narrowly interpreted" for my tastes within most expressions of the Christian tradition. In my personal research into primitive Christianity, I have found that the earliest Christians were deeply divided over the nature of Jesus. Was he only human? Was he human at all? Was he to be understood only as a Jewish rabbi? Was he to be understood as the last of the Greek demigods? Despite the revisionist history that comes with the canonized New Testament, there was no monolithic movement which embodied a set orthodoxy of Christianity before - in the very least - the third century AD/CE. There were Ebionites, Paulines, Alexandrians, Romans, Nestorians and Donatists, just to name a few! The name "Christian" was given to anyone that followed the teachings of Jesus, according to the tradition they were exposed to.

"Orthodox Christianity" in a very real sense - despite the beliefs of many American protestants - is still not a settled question and, in my historical opinion, never has been. Deep-seated divides over what is "legitimate" within Christianity have not, to this day, been settled by anyone. From the earliest disputes between James and Paul to the Ebionites versus the Paulines, to the Pelagians versus the Augustinians, to the Roman Catholics versus the Eastern Orthodox, to the Roman Catholics versus the Protestants, to the Calvinists versus the Arminians... the divides continue, mostly because each side believes that they have an exclusive claim to the truth about Jesus. It is partly because of these exclusive claims - which are deterministically closed-minded about other interpretations about Jesus - that I claim that most expressions of Christianity interpret Jesus too narrowly.

Another reason that Christian interpretations of Jesus, in general, "turn me off" is that even with all of the intra-Christian dissent about Jesus, Christianity as a whole applies the same attitude about interpreting Jesus against "non-Christians." In short: Christians believe that you have to be a card-carrying Christian in order to contribute to a faithful understanding of Jesus. This, to me, is both odious and senseless. I feel that Jesus, according to my belief in his special-ness, is far too large of a personality in human history to be closed-minded about. Let me clarify further: the more solid and inflexible your beliefs become about Jesus, the more narrowly you interpret him - the smaller he becomes. I speak from vast personal experience on this matter. It is my opinion that the more you try to define something like Jesus (whether as a person, an ideal, or simply an idea), the more you attempt to contain him... the more you attempt to limit his being and inspiration. Despite his obviously central role within Christianity, most expressions of that tradition - to me - do far too much defining, limiting and containing for my tastes. I prefer to believe that if Jesus is "the apex of the vortex", then he won't mind any of my attempts to find his inspiration, example and the wonder he represents in "unlikely" places.

Feel free to leave any comments that you feel are appropriate. As always, please leave the light on.

from emptiness to everything

The Preamble: Coryn told me that she really likes running errands with me. She said it reminds her of when we were dating and we did everything together. And today we were running errands together while listening to John Mayer's Continuum album. I know John Mayer is a musically polarizing artist - you either like him or you think he sucks. I hope you readers can appreciate the kind of risk I took alienating you all by telling you that I was listening to his music!

In any case, we were driving around and a song of his called "Belief" spun up and, through the course of listening to his lyrics, Coryn and I began to realize that John was kind of singing about one of the major themes I've been trying to talk about with this blog: everyone believes something, at some level they're trying to fight for that belief, and the dogmatic division this willingness to fight for our beliefs is causing a pretty substantial amount of the conflict we have in this world... from little conflicts between two people and large conflicts between two nations.

Just so we're all on the same page, I'm going to post the lyrics of this song so you can follow along:

Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing their mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time

Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily

Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for

Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside

Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no ones going quietly

We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for

What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

The Case: Whether you like John's music or not, agree with his political ideologies or not, or find him credible in commenting on "the human condition" or not, it can scarcely be argued that everyone believes in something. As Dallas Willard said once at a conference:

"Whether someone is a Christian or not, they are going to live according to certain assumptions about what is real. They are very likely to accept the popular notion that they live in a world where there really is no God, and that right and wrong are determined by what you want, as long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's freedom.

We have to start by helping people see that they cannot escape the fact that, no matter what they do, they are in fact choosing one version of what is real, true, and good. In that choice they need to be responsible. Not believing in something has exactly the same consequences as believing.

I'm saying that [we all have] a belief. This is absolutely crucial for [us] to understand. Otherwise [we are] under the illusion that [we are] in a safe place simply because [we haven't] explicitly committed [ourselves] to something."

On the question of "God" - everyone believes in something. By saying they don't believe in "God", most people mean that they don't accept a Christian's interpretation of reality. But the so-called "atheist" is a theoretical impossibility. There is, to everyone, an assumption or belief about the cosmic reality that exists outside of ourselves. To the Hindus it is called "the Brahman", to the Jews that cosmic reality is called "Yahveh" or "Elohim", to the Christian it is called "Y'shua HaMasshiach" or "Jesus Christ" and so on. Some will tell you that a Zen Buddhist has no "divinity" to emulate or achieve, but their cosmic reality is the attainment of "enlightenment" which stops the cycle of life. I don't mean to equate these perceptions of reality as though they are somehow really the same... they're not. Each of these perceptions of reality is an ideology of its own. They all have very intrinsically different and unequal "ideas" that they are trying to convey and, as I said before, to try to say they are the same thing is to diminish all of them.

What I mean to say is that there is no truly "neutral" position when it comes to reality. And, like Dallas explained, being non-committal about reality is still the same as choosing. Like the song says, "everyone believes, from emptiness to everything." When you say that you believe in something or stand for something you are intrinsically saying at the same time that you believe against something else and stand against something else... even if that "something else" seems senseless and obvious. But it is important to examine your values and your assumptions about reality in order to see just where and what those assumptions place you in regards to the opposite. Performing that kind of a "values inventory" may lead you to learn quite a bit about yourself, how you see the world, and - most importantly - why!

The asking of "why" is also a critical element of learning anything. Surely none of us are so educated and full of truth that there's no need to continue asking questions and continue learning. It may surprise you to learn that, in one way or another, we've all gotten to a place where we believe that there is nothing more to be learned - we've "figured it out". Think about it. There is something in your mind or heart that you have such a conviction about that you do not believe you could ever actually be wrong about it. I know that I've had to confront my own on many occasions and continue to find more every time I go to look. I've come to believe that this is simply an element of "experience". Through the course of events all of us begin to detect patterns about our existence in reality, those patterns lead us to assumptions, those assumptions lead us to convictions. Those convictions lead us to construct dogmatic brick-wall "beliefs" and "values" which, eventually, come together in the form of an ideology that dominates our worldview and keeps us insulated from the (sometimes frighteningly) dynamic nature of reality. Asking "why", like an infuriatingly curious two-year-old, helps keep those assumptions to a minimum, undermining the "mortar effect" that hardens those assumptions into rigid worldviews.

The Question: What do you call the cosmic, universal, objective reality? Do you remember how you originally came to this understanding? What are the most significant assumptions that you have about reality? Have you allowed those assumptions to crystalize into a rigid belief system or worldview? If you have any kind of rigid belief system or worldview, have you experimented with "why"? If so, how far down the rabbit hole did it take you? Blow up the comments section - I can't wait to see what you all were able to get from this.

Leave the light on.

honesty - the best policy

The Preamble: I've gotten some good questions recently on the ideas I've posted so far (which, granted, isn't really much) and they've led to some really good conversations. I love conversation. Anyone that knows me knows that much. I don't like "small talk" or "chit-chat". It drives me crazy - too superficial, no depth, no meaning... whatever the reason I've just never liked it. But conversation is kind of like a unique learning style for me. Some people are auditory, some visual - I'm a very conversational learner. I guess that's why I like asking questions and making potentially provocative statements: they're bound to start a conversation - a chance for me to learn something. Today I got to talk to someone about the difference between "truth" (as I've defined it out to the right of the posts) and "reliability". As always, some people will accuse me of splitting linguistic hairs or of being too pedantic or technical when I say that there's a real difference between truth and reliability. But allow me to make my case and elaborate on why I think it's important.

The Case: Let me first say that there are two different kinds of "truth" that people will identify with. There's a factual truth (which, to me, is the only real kind of truth) and then there's a "philosophical truth". Factual truth deals in the realm of what is knowable. Tonight it is partly cloudy outside and 76 degrees... it rained earlier and the power went out twice. This is factually true if you live on the east side of Allen, Texas. Philosophical truth - which isn't technically a question of truth at all - is the realm of belief and opinion. "Humans are inherently evil" or "love conquers all" or "blondes have more fun", etc. These are statements that cannot be empirically proven or factually substantiated (yet or, perhaps, ever). They are opinions, beliefs, and values. They are axioms and maxims - not facts.

Let's put the more axiomatic philosophical truth aside for a moment and talk about the difference between factual truth and general reliability for a moment. A friend of mine asked me to unpack the differences that I saw between truth and reliability so I went to a place that was very familiar to the both of us: Biblical Christianity. (Uh oh.) You may think that what I'm about to delve into will look like I'm "picking on" Christianity and you may end up having very strong feelings about what I'm about to say. All I'll ask is that you simply hear me out.

Despite the rhetorical platitude you'll hear from evangelicals calling it a "relationship", Christianity is a religion. It is a religion and has been since (roughly) the late-third-to-early-fourth century. Just like every other religion in existence today (though I will readily admit its complete uniqueness in history), Christianity is an ideological framework based around "the sacred": in its case "the sacred" is Jesus Christ. As an ideology Christianity has been, at many times, at complete odds with the objective and factual reality that we call "the truth." In a vain attempt to deny the claim I'm making about Christianity, many modern (mostly protestant evangelical) believers will try to divorce the vast history of the Christian "church" from its more modern manifestations. As an ideological framework Christianity has historically been on the wrong side of truth by tying itself to empirically improvable or empirically false beliefs and insisting on their truthfulness. Ok - that's a big, bold, and mean claim to make. A big accusation to level. So what could I be talking about?

Let's go back to my particular problem: the elevation of something that isn't empirical, factual, and objective to the elite status of true. Christians use Jesus as the reference point of truth. Jesus, according to Christians and the synoptic gospel narratives, is "the Truth." The word used for this in the gospels is "aletheia" and there is both an objective way to translate that word and a subjective translation. In an empirical sense, there is no way anyone can substantiate the claim that Jesus is the central reference point for all truth. There's no way to validate the truth of Jesus' "truthiness" (to borrow from Stephen Colbert). Until the day that we can prove - one way of the other - the factuality of this statement by Jesus, it remains firmly in the realm of philosophical truth: the realms of opinion and belief. This is the starting point for every skeptic in the world: every non-believer, every skeptic, every critic, and every cynic. What makes this unnerving to a Christian is that the notion of Jesus' factual truth-ness is unquestionable. The Christian won't even entertain the question - as my friend could not during this conversation. But in order to be intellectually honest, in order to remain objective, in order to give loyalty to the truth above all else, we must come to this conclusion - it's the only one that reality has left available to us. What should console the Christian is this quote from Dallas Willard: "Jesus is on the side of truth and if you don't believe that, you don't believe in Jesus." If Jesus is "the Truth", then our loyalty to finding the truth will ultimately lead to him. If not, then the Christian is wasting his time. Either way - there is nothing lost by evaluating the truth outside of an ideological scope while using uncomfortable questions.

The Christian, in this case, may not be interested in "the truth" or interested in intellectual honesty, or objectivity. It's understandable. The ideological framework of Christianity cannot allow a core supposition to be challenged. But let's get it out there: if we can't substantiate the truth-ness of Jesus or prove his divinity empirically, then what are we left with? That's where the vocabulary of "general reliability" comes in. We may not have empirical proof for a philosophical truth, but what information we do have - while not devoid of internal and factual "question marks" - can easily be called "generally reliable". In other words: what we do know about Jesus, on question of factuality, is reliable information. Much of it has been substantiated by archaeology, anthropology, historical studies, etc. The synoptic Jesus traditions and gospel narratives are historically reliable. Not "inerrant" as many Christians would try to elevate it, but reliable. We may not be able to prove Jesus rose from the dead or performed miracles or was born in Bethlehem to a girl named Mary... but we've got plenty of reasons to believe that this information is reliable and that's good enough to put some trust in. It's good enough to believe until or unless the information is proven one way or the other. We may never know if the Bible on the whole or the gospels is true in a factual or empirical sense - proven beyond reasonable doubt - but it can be said in the very least that it is "reliable" and potentially true.

Ok - so why would I even make this point? Why would I walk into such an unpopular and controversial minefield? And why would you, the reader, be at all interested in following along? Let me say this: I'm not naive. The statements I've made and the questions I've asked are, to many, inflammatory or even blasphemous. More to the point: what I've said is either going to turn most people off from listening to anything else I've got to say, or piss other people off. But this point has to be made.

When someone makes a claim of truth that cannot be substantiated or proven, it damages the credibility of the person(s) making the claim. One of the biggest reasons Christianity - as a religion - has slowly slipped further and further into complete irrelevance to this world is because its credibility is almost completely shot. From the absolutely corrupt institutions of the Catholic papacy in history, to the political catastrophe of the Crusades, to the shameful Copernicus/Gallileo (Sun-revolves-around-the-Earth) fiasco, to the Inquisition, to Protestant persecutions, to the Conquistadors, to the Augustinian/Calvanistic tradition of hybridizing church-state powers, to the modern embarrassment of literal creationism and the divorce of discipleship from "churchgoing" - Christianity has lost its credibility and claim of relevance because it advanced an ideology and elevated opinions and beliefs to the elite status of truth. And instead of being honest with themselves and others, Christians (like everyone else in the world) has placed a higher importance on being "right" instead of being "truthful"... on being believed instead of being honest.

The only way for anyone, in any walk of life, to regain any degree of credibility with the world-at-large is to return to a stalwart loyalty to the truth, calling things what they are, being intellectually honest about reality, and keeping an open dialogue with people who have different opinions and beliefs. And you can't regain credibility inside the framework of an ideology.

The Question: I hope that this post was very provocative. I don't have a specific set of questions to ask, but feel free to elaborate on whatever thoughts (if any) were spurred by the topic. Feel free to disagree or express whatever opinions you may have on it. Comments are not "moderated" or edited - I only ask that you be respectful to other commentors.

unstoppable forces and immovable objects

The preamble: I credit Dallas Willard with giving new life to what should be one of the most obvious truths available to all mankind when he said - of truth - that, "Reality is that thing you run into when you're wrong." Dallas was trying to contrast the concept of "relative truth" and "absolute truth" as he went on to give a parable which I will paraphrase. He talked about a man driving a car and running out of gas. The man, not really comfortable with the inconvenience of his current reality decides to engage in a series of denials. But, as Dallas puts it, no matter how much our shared reality offends our sensibilities, no matter how much sympathy we garner from others about how we shouldn't be beholden to a reality that is so at odds with our own self-interests, no matter how much we protest it: that reality continues to exist. It is that objective reality that should return as the standard for our labels of "truth".

The case: As a history major I had to take a class my first semester at the university to teach me how to be a historian. In this class our professor had to lay the foundation for "historical inquiry" by training us to see the difference between fact, inference, and opinion. You might think to yourself: "wow, seems kind of obvious what the differences are." You might be right. What I noticed during that grueling process (which, at some levels, took all semester) is how unable most people - myself included - are unable to separate empirical fact from inferences and opinions stated as though they were facts. As it says on the sidebar of the blog, I've come to the conclusion that truth has three essential and core elements: it is universal, it is factual, and it is objective. Let's unpack that here for a second.

By claiming that truth is universal, I'm not insisting that it is absolute. The word "absolute" carries with it a stigma that I won't inject into our, hopefully, shared vision of reality. By attributing that it is universal I'm simply characterizing truth as something that must apply equally to all at all times. That means if something is really true for you, then it is also true for me. If it is really true, then that truth almost certainly transcends time. In this way is truth different than fact which can be tied, intrinsically, to specific points in time.

While truth and fact are different in certain aspects of their nature, truth is factual. Truth must be rooted in facts for it to be actual truth. This is where so much truth gets confused and lost for so many of us. As I mentioned in my last post on ideologies and "isms", many of us filter truth and reality through our ideological constructs and we begin to claim that things are true simply because we believe them - not because the reality supports them. I'm not saying that having a belief is wrong so please don't misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that having a belief can be dangerous because you may find, at some point, that your belief is actually at odds with the truth... and that is a life-shattering moment. This is true of all ideologies (of which religions are a considerable member). We see this confusion of truth and belief or opinion in mediums as muddled as car dealership commercials and as sacred as commentary on holy texts. But the reality of it all is that factuality determines truth, not belief. I can no more say that the Christian Bible is "inerrant" holy writ than I can say that so-and-so Ford dealership is the best place in the world to buy a car. The available and empirical facts simply do not support either statement as truth. (I promise to return to this statement in a later post because I know that it might be something of a 'bombshell'.)

Perhaps most importantly for us to remember is that truth is objective. Truth has no agenda to advance, no ax to grind, no interest to protect. Truth simply is... it just exists. As I've mentioned before, the enemy of truth is ideology which is rooted in ego-centrism and the preservation of one's own self-interests. Therefore, it stands to reason, that one will often find truth quite at odds with one's own self-interests.

It is at this starting point of truth as objective and factual reality that our individual and collective journey can begin. I'm not sure if it is a fact or if it is true, but I believe that you - the reader - are likely to be interested in finding some kind of truth in your life. If that is true of you then your first step on this path to finding truth (which will always go deeper and farther than we expect it to, feel comfortable with, and can afford) is to make a solemn pledge of allegiance to the truth. Be prepared to ask questions that make your stomach turn. Questions that are truly unthinkable. Questions that will very likely offend your morals, values, and your sensibilities. Questions that may shake the foundation of your identity and your view of reality. And then prepare yourself for the answers which will almost certainly do all of that and more.

The questions: What values are so deeply ingrained in you that you consider them "non-negotiable"? Are those values rooted in belief or in objective and factual reality? (Be honest with yourself.) In what areas of your life have you been like the man that ran out of gas? Perhaps most importantly: how far are you willing to go to find out the truth?