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.

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.

building brick walls

The Preamble: I've gotten lots of questions about the nature of Jesus recently in a response to the posts I've written. I guess I should say that this blog was never intended to be a theological blog in nature, nor was it intended to illuminate the mysteries of Christianity (as if I were an expert on them). Rather this blog was intended to talk about how to see the objective, universal, and empirically substantiated reality we all share and how to remove the obstacles of ideology that make it difficult for all of us to see its full scope. In my posts I often reference Jesus as an informant of my own research and worldview so I suppose it was inevitable that my audience (being in a part of the world that is particularly influenced by Christianized traditions and worldviews) would ask questions as to who Jesus is to me. I am also not as surprised by the full range of questions I've gotten because of the recent post "the gods must be angry". As Walt said - I expected to raise some "dander" with the idea I put forward.

The Case: It seems to me that at least some of my readers (through a lack of clarity on my part) took away from my original post that I was passing a theological judgment on the Christian church. I take responsibility for that mis-communication. In fact the argument and point I was trying to bring up in the original post was not theological at all, but historical, social, and analytical. Now, in all fairness to the reader, it is nearly impossible to discuss the historical, social, and analytical aspects of religious/moral history without touching on the theology that has become so dominant in our culture or without addressing the mindset or individuals that share in that theology. There were times in that original post where I did address "New Testament disciples of Jesus" in a modern context and confront - head-on - a concept of theological and moral tradition in America and the west. But, still, my intention was only to illuminate and enumerate the historically critical questions to both the "believer" and "non-believer" alike.

The comments and responses that followed required me to draw deeper into the "theological" and further from the "historical" as the line between "ideology" and "reality" got blurrier. As those separate conversations went on, readers began to raise questions about my "beliefs" on the nature of Jesus which I tried to answer in an objective, universal, and empirically substantiated fashion. As I've tried to make the point since the beginning of this blog - that is like trying to speak in two different languages. Eventually the two participants in a conversation begin to talk past one another instead of having dialogue because one or both are unable or unwilling to bridge the gap that causes the breakdown in communication.

If you've been reading the comments section of this blog you've been a first-hand witness to, what I believe, is the primary obstacle in communication between the "non-believer" and the "believer". My experience with the modern and western (i.e. American) manifestation of Christianity - especially the "evangelical" community - is that when it comes to "finding the Truth" the non-believer must start dancing to the music of the believer. In other words: if a non-believer or seeker wants to access the mystery of Christ, he has to start reading the church's talking points and adopt the church's worldview regardless of unresolved questions about reality. I say again, this is my experience but it is an experience I've been forming over the last dozen or so years from both sides of the fence (as a "preacher" and a "seeker"). If you believe that I've reached this conclusion erroneously then I encourage you to find someone that is "unchurched" (and there are some that read this blog that would be willing to tell you about their own experiences and perceptions, I'm sure) and ask them if what I'm saying is true. By all means, I encourage you to research this in your own environment and come to your own conclusions.

Rob Bell talks about a pattern that he has perceived in the evangelical church of building rigid theological walls (which he calls "Brickitanity") that require the seeker to "get it right" in order to "get right". In other words, these wall-building practices say to the non-believer and the seeker alike that they "have to accept truth on our terms or suffer damnation for all time." I have spent many many years of my life studying Jesus' teachings in the New Testament texts and, from my own analytical point of view, this kind of attitude runs contrary to the message and character of the Biblical Jesus. I have encountered many people in life that share a more rigid and traditional view of Christian doctrine and I'm sure that there's little, if anything, that I can say to change their minds. What I'm hoping to convey to the believer, the seeker, the non-believer, and the militant non-believer is that there are some people that are not interested in building more brick walls, or asking "outsiders" to jump through more hoops in order to get the benefits of Jesus' teachings and character. What I hope to convey is that everyone, regardless of what they "believe", is worth the time, energy, and investment of being on the recieving end of the "Divine Character": love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control (or "discipline" - thanks Jon!).

This blog will always attempt to approach the cosmic, universal, objective, and empirically substantiated reality by bridging the "language gap" and breaking down the rigid brick walls of dogma, because dialogue between the believer and non-believer is too important not to. If I believe I am supposed to approach that great reality of truth by pushing "further up and farther in", I must also follow my conviction to bring others with me regardless of the assumptions they've already come to in the course of living life. In that process I feel compelled to cast as wide an invitation as I can, to speak the language of those hoping to travel with me (whether "religious" or "secular"), and to remain open to questions of all kinds and on all topics... regardless of how uncomfortable the answers and conclusions may be. The needs of others to have their questions, unresolved frustrations, and painful life experiences heard, listened to, talked about, and worked through is more important than my "need" to recluse myself to a life of no questions, where all of my beliefs are handed to me in a neatly packaged, but critically immune, doctrine.

And I hope to always leave the light on.