martin luther on "faith"

Martin Luther is quoted as having once said the following on "faith":

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."

There is an obvious linkage between Lutheran attempts to reform the Catholic Church and modern American Protestantism. His ideas, writings and values - whether understood or not - cast a large shadow over the various Christian sects (or "denominations", if you prefer) in existence and this opinion is certainly no different. 

There is a strong undercurrent of belief among those "religious" and "spiritual" men and women that insist that all knowledge, reason, sensory perception and even science must conform to what has been revealed by God via his holy "Word." I am curious to know whether or not people of faith believe that Luther is correct in this statement. Must faith be pre-eminent or dominate over all other forms of knowledge? Can knowledge derived from a separate source ever successfully challenge or contradict "faith"? 

I look forward to your responses. 

thoughts on objective reality

In my last post, I attempted to explore and contrast the differences between assumption, fact, belief and knowledge and apply them to the standard of "objective reality." I recently received this comment from a reader:

I'd like to hear more on objective reality. Your "the world is round" comment made me think...is Earth round? Obviously, we know it is round from a extraterrestrial yet intra solar system perspective. But what about from another galaxy? Our solar system is not spherical. It is a flat disc. And our Earth is a non-dimensional speck. Without rambling, I'm just curious as to how objective is reality? And similarly, how universal can truth be?

I want to: a) thank the reader for his question and, b) attempt to answer this question to the best of my ability.

One of the prevalent definitions that I have been working off of for the purposes of this blog has been that of "objective and factual reality." Let me begin by making a clear admission: all three key words in that phrase are highly debatable in terms of conception. Allow me to explain further:

• Objective - the dictionary defines "objective" as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." The definition, however, can be deceptively straightforward. The problem is not necessarily the act of defining objectivity but achieving objectivity. It is my opinion that humans, because of their inherent first-person perspective, are not able to achieve complete objectivity. We all have limited perspectives as individuals and, as a species, our perspective is also currently limited. Whether that will change any time in the future remains to be seen. I do believe that there is a "reality" that is completely objective and free from personal bias and limited perspective, even if humans cannot perceive it. It appears to me that φύσις (physis or, crudely, "nature") is objective outside of νόμος (nomos or "human convention"). In this light one might say that nature, itself, is both objective and real because it does not conform to the biases, feelings or interpretations of human convention.
  
• Factual - this idea, too, is difficult to wrestle with. In modern, English-speaking traditions we understand the word fact to have the meaning of "holding a mirror to reality." From an empirical, and scientific, perspective this makes plenty of sense. There is a conflict, however, when one reads the idea of a fact in an ancient sense. The Latin word for fact - facere - means, roughly, to do or make with one's hands. It is the same Latin root that provides English words like "factory" and "manufacture". The ancient Greek analog of facere is poeio or poesis - the root word for poetry. Tying this with the previous definition, a fact is also a product of human convention because it requires a medium of communication in order for it to be shared between peoples and because it also, generally, requires an agreement between peoples to be accepted. Thus, in order to get to a place where your knowledge of the world is informed by facts, you must first come to terms with the idea of factuality and decide how you intend to deploy the word with language.
  
• Reality - this may be the most troubling idea of all. Every time I use the word "reality" I can feel my professors cringe. I use this word a lot, but I also try to use this word advisedly or, on occasion, by framing it in quotation marks. The English word "reality" has a Latin root in res - meaning "thinghood" or "thingness" - and in the Greek word onto - meaning "being". If that sounds confusing or pedantic to you, you're definitely not alone. How can anyone begin to define something like "being" or "thinghood"? This, of course, is the problem associated with using a word like "reality" without prefacing it with a specific definition.

Even with these logological difficulties with understanding "objective factual reality", I still think it is possible to employ the concept. If we refrain from framing our exploration of reality in a human-centered (anthropocentric) view and allow for a broader Being-centered (ontocentric) view, the idea of "reality" begins to take sharper focus. All of that is a ridiculously philosophical way of saying the following: "reality", as I understand it, is considerably larger than the human being's perspective and experience: unlimited, unaltered and indifferent to our attempts - successful or not - to understand it.

With regard to "how universal can truth be", I can only fall back to a simple answer: truth is only as universal as reality is; which is to say that it is only universal, since truth and reality are the same. How people understand, interpret or communicate truth may be prone to mistake or manipulation, but - again - reality (and truth) is unbiased and not influenced by human convention.

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.

the gods must be angry

The Preamble: So I've been reading a book called "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna and I have to recommend it to anyone searching for a very authentic and original examination of the Christian church. Reading the book and examining the evidence provided has also rekindled my own thoughts about the pagan nature of what most people call "Christianity". (*Disclaimer: None of the information I address in this post has anything to do with what is discussed in the previously mentioned book and I do not represent the authors or their viewpoints.*) Some of the more difficult questions I've had to work through revolve around the roots of morality as a cultural bonding agent and its preoccupation with the ancient pagan fertility gods.

The Case: Let me start by saying that I did not come to any of these questions or conclusions lightly. The sensibilities put in me from my childhood were just as offended in my initial discovery of what I plan to share with all of you as yours are certain to be. What can be certain, however, is that when you start to examine the stability of your foundations and when you begin to perceive that the foundations and structure you've inherited are inherently flawed it can be a frightening experience. I want to approach this topic as sensitively and gingerly as possible without mincing words or watering down my case. I encourage you to continue to respond in the form of comments (for dialogue and discussion), emails, and phone calls because this topic is (in my opinion) too important to walk away from without engaging.

All of that being said, let me dive right into it. There are certain facts about how ancient paganism has infiltrated the modern "Christian" community that are readily obvious to even the most casual question-asker. Some of the easiest examples to digest are found in Christian sacred holidays like Christmas and Easter.

In regards to Christmas, celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25 is a holdover from the old Roman pagan holiday dedicated to Sol Invictus ("the Invincible Sun" god). There is no solid archaeological, Biblical, or empirical evidence to suggest that Jesus was born on December 25 (or even in the winter). One of the main reasons that this has never been challenged by church leaders or theologians is that there is very little evidence to suggest what time of year Jesus was born at all, so no alternative date has ever been offered. Generally for most Christians the date makes little difference because there's no harm and no foul in the current tradition. Let me be clear: I'm not anti-Christmas or trying to argue against the holiday. I'm simply trying to cast some light onto how our traditions started and allow you, the reader, to come to some sound conclusions on what it means for you. The question that should come to mind, however, is this: if Christmas is in the top two most sacred holidays for Christians, why would the Gospel writers not give us a relative timetable for his birth? (All we're given is clues as to the year it happened.) The answer is in the history. The original Christians (including the Apostles and the Apostlic church fathers) didn't celebrate Christmas. There is no teaching in the New Testament or by the Apostlic church leaders of the first 300 years of Christianity suggesting they ever celebrated Christmas. In fact, the only truly Christian holiday they celebrated was the Resurrection (what we now call "Easter"). Most of the holidays the first Christians celebrated were the Jewish religious holidays like Passover. And that, of course, brings us to Easter.

Easter, as we've come to know it, was not celebrated by the first Christians either. The early church celebrated the Resurrection every single day. They held meetings every day (very different from our "church") to discuss the Resurrection and celebrate it, pray for one another, tend to each others' needs, and then they celebrated the Resurrection by partaking in communion every day. But even their communion was different from ours. It was not a saltless wafer and grape juice (real wine if you belong to a more liturgical congregation). The entire Christian population in a given city or town gathered together at a central meeting place (usually a large house - where all daily church meetings took place) and ate a large and hearty dinner there including whole loaves of bread and barrels of wine. It was, essentially, like a wedding banquet every day! But when it comes to setting apart one day in early-mid Spring for celebration of the Resurrection... that didn't begin until after 325 AD when the Roman govenment took over as the central power of the "church". It was then that Easter, like Christmas' from Sol Invictus, was taken from the old Roman pagan holiday dedicated to the fertility god. Easter bunnies, eggs, mandatory church attendence... all of this is a holdover from the ancient fertility god. When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the Roman government in the early fifth century the new Roman "bishops" (which were simply Roman pagan nobles given new positions of great power) decided to merge the very popular pagan holiday with the Resurrection since they both signified "new life" and, thus, Easter was born. Even the mandatory church service was a holdover from the old fertility god. Romans, under the pagan system, were strongly encouraged to visit the temples of the fertility god in order for that god to continue to give to all of Rome's empire agricultural and reproductive fertility. Since, under Christianity, the old fertility god had been replaced by one God and a very powerful symbol of life and fertility in the Resurrected Christ, the old traditions simply made way for new names and new gods.

What's important to remember about this is that the Romans lived in absolute terror of angering the fertility gods. They believed that if they did not continually satisfy the fertility gods, then those gods would cause the land to stop producing food, the rivers and lakes to dry up, and the women to stop having children. Without water, food, and new Roman boys the empire could not maintain its staus and power in the world. When the people of the Roman empire came to believe that there were not many different gods but one all-powerful God, the fear and dread of that one God became even more intense and the already-existing pagan morality became even more strict. The empire could not afford to risk angering this new God: a god - according to the Jewish scriptures - that was able to cause droughts and floods, was able to open and close the wombs of women, and was able to turn farmable lands into fields of blood. This ancient pagan devotion infiltrated the Roman "Christian" church from the very beginning and has not left since.

It is this pagan sense of morality that I intend to dive deeper into. By now you may be asking yourself, "Why does he keep saying 'pagan' and 'morality' as if they're linked?" That would be a truly excellent question to ask. One of the points I intend to show is that morality is not a creation of New Testament Christianity but, rather, pre-Christian paganism. Furthermore, this morality hasn't fundamentally changed since the first pagan society was formed and the very same pagan morality that existed in ancient Sumeria still exists today: it exists in our modern world as the foundation of western civilization, even as the backbone of the American culture and the skeleton of our modern - yet incredibly pagan - "Christianity".

It may surprise many of you to find out that morality as we know and practice is not Biblical in origin (neither Old nor New Testament... more on this in a little bit). For as long as humans have been living together in towns and cities, and as long as governments have existed, and as long as the old pagan gods have been worshipped by tribes and nations - morality has existed. The very first comprehensive morality code was created by the Sumerian/Babylonian civilization under a ruler named Hammurabi (1795-1750 BC), at least 300-500 years before the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt and the creation of the Ten Commandments. Depending on the dates of Abraham's departure from Ur (which was under the rule of what became Hammurabi's kingdom), Abraham and Hammurabi could have been contemporaries and Abraham could have taken the existing Babylonian morality code with him as he travelled to Egypt and Palestine. It is also just as likely that the Israelite culture, in keeping with the tradition of Abraham, was influenced by the existing morality code of Hammurabi when they produced (at the instruction of God, according to the texts) the Ten Commandments.

Now whether the Jewish Law was borrowed from another culture or whether it was hand-written by God himself is not really the question. It is an interesting question to get into, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm trying to point out is that what we consider "Biblical morality" actually existed in a culture that was, in no way, devoted to the God of the Bible. Hammurabi's morality code (which rivals the detailed laws in Leviticus) was developed in service to Babylonian pagan gods. And it isn't just Babylon, either. Egypt, Assyria, Neo-Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome all shared the same morality code. Surprisingly enough, four of the ten commandments are found in every single morality code in history: do not steal, do not kill, do not lie, do not commit adultery and two others were present in all pagan cultures: do not covet your neighbors possessions, and honor your parents.

All of that simply goes to show that the only thing that was unique about the standard morality code of the ancient Jews is that it was done in devotion to one God instead of many gods. But, more importantly, the ancient Jews shared the same rules, laws, customs, and taboos as their pagan neighbors when it came to issues regarding the fertility gods. Some of the most oft-repeated miracles in the Old Testament revolve around Yahveh (God) performing miracles of fertility: making barren women have children, making the crops grow, making the rain fall on drought-ridden lands... producing prosperity and ensuring the survival of the Israelite people through history. These were the very same miracles that the pagans asked of their gods and the pagans had special altars, special sacrifices, and special rituals to help get the favor of the gods just as the Jews did with Yahveh.

So, you may be asking, am I saying that the Jews were really pagans or that the Old Testament of the Bible is a copycat of the pagans? No, I'm not saying that. It should be noted that while Abraham followed the instruction of Yahveh, he still came from a pagan culture and it is never said that he rejected that culture. While the decendents of Abraham dedicated themselves to the One God, they still kept their knowledge of other gods and it was not uncommon for men in pagan cultures to devote themselves to one god over another in the group: the god of war for soldiers and warriors, the god of agriculture for farmers, the god of the sea for sailors, and the fertility god for nearly every woman on Earth whose worth was tied to the production of children. Abraham simply chose a mysterious, powerful and unknown God to dedicate his family to and that family (which would become the Jews and Arabs in later generations) knew nothing of monotheism as a religious practice until the Exodus and Moses.

But what does this have to do with our modern "Christian" morality being pagan in origin? The religious priesthood and authorities of all pagan cultures before Christianity had the same kind or moral system that we do and it was, like many other things, totally preoccupied with the fertility gods and the cultural survival that those gods represented. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans all had cultural and moral taboos against homosexuality, for instance. These moral taboos weren't always enforced (as we all know in history) because of the impact of hedonism but we know, in history, that many of the Roman emperors (before Christ and Christianity) outlawed homosexuality and cracked down on notorious locations of gay orgies because they were concerned over the morality of the empire and the impact it may have on the blessing of the gods (most especially the fertility gods).

Adultery and prostitution was also outlawed heavily from time-to-time for fear of angering the gods as a culture, but not because it was a betrayal of the sacred marriage bonds as we percieve it in a modern post-Christian culture. In the ancient world (and even parts of the world today) marriage was not done for love between two people. Marriage was a contract between families to hand over the ownership of women to men so that the man could use the woman to produce children. Women, in marriage, were not objects of love and beauty but objects of breeding. I apologize for offending any sensibilities when I say this, but it is from this built-in tradition of breeding that men - even today - continue to obsess over the hips and busts of women! And in this light our cultural and moral opposition to adultery does not come from a betrayal of love but a violation of property. It would be as if one cab driver took another cab driver's car to use for his own pleasure. The owner of the cab probably has little sentimental attachment to the car when you compare it to depriving the owner of his ability to use that car to provide for his family.

So, I'm sure you're asking, what's the point of all of this? What am I trying to say? Let me break it down as much as I can and get straight to the point.

America has a very strong moral backbone. It is built into nearly every institution we have and it is entirely inseparable from the culture and the society at large. Since the creation of the Roman Catholic Church in 325 AD (and nearly every single denomination that has followed since the Reformation in the 1500's) Christianity has become synonymous with morality. Christianity has adopted many things over the last 1700 years which Jesus, the Disciples, and the Apostlic church leaders never intended it to pick up and a systematic "morality", that ultimately seeks to gain the favor of God (or, more accurately, the gods), was one of those things. We've made hot-button issues out of adultery, abortion, and homosexuality because they offend our cultural morality and then call it Christian. But that morality was created, originally, by pagan societies, adapted for a single God by the Jews (with the best of intentions, I'm certain), abandoned by the New Testament and adopted again by pagans in Christian clothing after the early church fathers and the Twelve Apostles were long dead. The ethic of the New Testament is not one of morality but one of the Divine Character: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control (Galatians 5:22). Christians in the New Testament are instructed on how to live as Christ did, conforming themselves to His example - going to the "moral outcasts" and bringing them into a redemption that morality and "the law" could never give.

It is the time for all New Testament disciples of Jesus to see the moral code we've adopted for what it is: a pagan manifestation intended to curry favor with the gods. We can see it when Jerry Fallwell blamed 9/11 on abortion. We can see it when Pat Robertson says that Katrina happened because of homosexuality. We can see it when James Dobson warns against calamity and disaster because of adultery and the failure of the family unit. These men do not represent the Jesus of the New Testament but the old gods of paganism when they claim such things. We put ourselves under the yoke of the old gods when we live in fear of violating morality for even more fear of disaster being brought to our doorstep. God is not a vindictive old man with a thunderbolt waiting to crush you under his feet if you fail to please him. That's not what Jesus tells us about God... and if Jesus is who he said he is, he ought to know!

The mission of the New Testament church is not to fight the "moral decline" of America or western civilization. Leave that to the pagans in Christian clothing. The mission of the New Testament church is to love and support the moral outcast without any agenda or ulterior motive. It is to let their love, not their tired sermonizing, do the preaching to the "lost" and broken. Is abortion heartbreaking? Yes. But the answer isn't morality - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Is adultery heartbreaking and harmful to families? Yes. But the answer isn't morality - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Does homosexuality miss the ideal of human monogamy and family creation? Possibly - but I'm not one to say and never will be. But I do know this: morality isn't the answer - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.

"I seriously command that you may not exploit your neighbor or oppress him... You may not curse the deaf or trip the blind... You may not slander or spread rumors and gossip about your neighbor and do not treat the lives of your neighbors as worthless... You may not secretly hate your neighbor... You may not seek revenge or keep a grudge against any of your people. You will love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." - Leviticus 19:13-18

"If all you do is love those that are like you, what good is that? Even the pagans do that much. No, I am telling you this... live generously and graciously towards others in the same way that God is generous and gracious towards you." - Jesus, Matthew 5:47-48

The Question: I realize that this post, somewhat differently from other posts, works from an assumption of Christian spirituality as opposed to a more universal and generic framework that I usually work from. This was done in order to respond to a specific problem I perceive within the framework of Christianity in order to start a dialogue between Christians and non-Christians about the foreign and dangerous nature of the infiltration of pagan morality. There is no question this time... I'm just asking that we begin the dialogue.

Leave the light on.

veritas universus

The Preamble: I get to have a lot of conversations with a lot of people and they're rarely about trivial or "light" topics. People who know me will laugh at that admission as something of an understatement. I've, often times, wondered seriously if that part of my personality was a flaw in my character and sometimes regret that I can't take a normal conversation to a pleasant and ultimately superficial end. But in these "heavy" or "deep" conversations I get to observe first-hand all kinds of human behavior. Because of the nature of the conversations, I get to observe the way people react to challenging ideas, new principles, or revolutionary theories. One of the most common threads I see with people in these observations is the refusal of any truth (to whatever degree of evidence) because of the messenger. If we, as people, don't like the person speaking - we're that much less likely to accept any truth from them.

The Case: Truth is universal. If it isn't universal then it can't be truth... it's something else. Something less. It applies to all people, all of the time. But there's also another aspect of the universality of truth: if your interest and sole loyalty is to the truth then all truth in the universe belongs to you. My friends have a saying: "all truth is our truth." It's a motto we have that we repeat to each other whenever we have to remind ourselves and each other that truth is truth, regardless of where it comes from. All of this is starting to sound kind of academic and "out of touch", I'm sure. Let me unpack this differently.

When a conservative pundit or politician gives statistical, accurate, and/or factual information about the medical dangers and long-term trauma associated with abortion, liberals should listen to that. Likewise, when Al Gore or some credible liberal scientist talks about the dangers associated with global warming (which are statistically proven - this planet is getting warmer) and urge that humans should make it an urgent and immediate priority to reduce carbon emissions, conservatives should listen to that. Liberals - as normal human beings with very normal human reactions - have a nasty tendency to immediately knee-jerk and refuse to hear the information that come from conservatives.This is true of conservatives as well (and we could debate for decades over who does it more, but that would be a complete waste of time.)

When Osama bin Laden says that U.S. foreign policy and our own greed as a nation (and as individuals sharing in the wealth of this nation) is responsible for the hatred we are experiencing the world over - we should listen to that. Not because we like Osama bin Laden or find him to be a credible person, but because the people that are doing the hating are all saying the same thing. If they all agree on the reason for their hate, then we should pay attention (if, of course, peace is something we would like to ever achieve).

When James Dobson says that families function best when you have a man and a woman in a stable, monogamous relationship producing children - we should listen to that. There is statistical information to corroborate that claim. We don't have to like James Dobson or what he stands for in general to accept the truth of his claim.

When Barack Obama addresses a convention of Christian ministers and says that American Christians "aren't reading their Bibles" and that their behavior and policy positions do not reflect the tenets and teaching of the New Testament - we should listen to that. Barack Obama may not be credible, he may not be a good person, he may be a "closet Muslim" (though the idea is truly ridiculous and laughable to anyone willing to see the truth)... he may not be someone we like, but we should listen to what he's saying because it's true.

All truth is our truth. A truth about the life of Jesus is just as easily spoken from the mouth of an atheist as it is from the Pope in Rome or Billy Graham. A true criticism from the outside is every bit as true (even if unwelcome) as a true criticism from within. A scientist talking about evolution is telling the truth, even when it seems to a religious person that this truth violates their traditions or sacred texts. A lesson on the cyclical nature of violence is true whether spoken by Ghandi or Christ. All truth belongs to us.

In this sense those of us that place a sole loyalty to the truth - outside of ideology or preference, or preconception - belong to a kind of fraternity. In a conversation with a friend of mine I described this idea as "the church of truth". We all belong to a corpus of individuals that are trying to approach this singular, universal, and objective reality from totally different places and viewpoints. In this way we're like kindred spirits - it's a dedication to the objective reality of truth that binds us all together. It, also, not only binds us to each other, but to every truth we can substantiate and every truth we can't - the still unseen and mysterious reality. It's a "church", in the original sense of the word, that transcends any kind of division between us. From race, to religion, political affiliation, nationality, economic background, social status, geography, education, and gender.

If truth is truly universal, and truth truly applies to everyone equally, then it is in truth (knowing it and living it) that we are bound together. It is the common foundation of all of the virtues - upon which all civil human interaction is dependent. It is the destination, the path, and the journey - both the means and the end. Truth is the reality which all humankind exists in and the light by which to see it.

"Anyone working and living in truth and reality is constantly drawing closer to the light so the work they do can be seen for what it is: divine." - Jesus (John 3:21)

"You will become increasingly intimate in your knowledge of what is true, and that intimacy with truth will liberate your entire being." - Jesus (John 8:32)

The Question: What truth are you rejecting becuase of the messenger bringing it? How do you respond to the idea of a "church or truth" that transcends all methods of division (including religion and culture)?

an honest addendum

First, I would like to thank all of you that have sent me emails and called me up in regards to the previous post (honesty - the best policy). It's been such a great experience to share with all of you and to get such great positive and constructive feedback. A lot of the questions I got were based on the structure of truth as I was trying to explain it. It became very apparent to me that I had explained this part poorly and need to clarify. While I was meditating on the subject my thoughts drifted to the scientific method and I immediately began to see the connection between the scientific process and the structure of truth that we're all looking for together.

The scientific method, for those of you who aren't very familiar with it, outlines the process by which scientists substantiate their hypotheses and create scientific laws. As the method goes, a scientists starts with a hypothesis: this hypothesis is simply an unsubstantiated idea or question. From there a scientist will take that hypothesis and use the tools of observation and experimentation to flesh out the hypothesis. If the experiment fails or the observations don't pan out then the hypothesis is either tossed out or adjusted so that the new information and facts drive the process - not the beliefs.

Once the hypothesis has been proven to a reasonable degree (i.e. in every way that it can be proven with the tools and information available to humans), then it becomes a scientific theory. A theory in science, unlike a "theory" as the word is used by a layperson, is not just an idea... it's a proven idea. It's proven to be true as far as we can tell. For instance, creationists (wanting to remain firmly in their strict and literal interpretation of Genesis' creation narrative) will attack the concept of evolutionary theory being taught in high school biology because "it's only a theory - it's not a fact." But that's a general misconception of what a theory is: a theory is a fact in every way that we can measure, but (as in the case of evolution) we can't prove as fact all of the necessary details to make it into a scientific law. But the title of "theory" means that it is as factual as we can tell and is potentially a law.

A scientific law is the equivalent of "factual truth". It is proven to be true in all circumstances and for all people all of the time. "The Sun is the center of the solar system", "humans carry two pairs of 23 chromosomes in their genetic structure", "the earth is round", "what goes up must come down". These laws were born from a hypothesis that became a theory through experimentation and observation and were declared laws when all points could be independently substantiated.

To search out truth - real, factual, empirical, objective, and universal reality - the same method is at work. The only difference is the terminology. Instead of "hypothesis" we use "belief", instead of "theory" we use "axiom" or "philosophical truth", and instead of "law" we use "factual truth".

In this sense a belief can be false. It's just an idea. It's not really proven at any real level. It is here that all ideology is born. This is why ideology is incredibly dangerous - they are all based on completely unsubstantiated ideas. If they were proven they wouldn't be ideologies or beliefs - they'd be taken for granted as truth. That doesn't mean that the core belief of an ideology is definitely false - it means it is unproven and could be false. An ideology could be having the believer base his or her entire view of reality on something that could be false.

The axioms we have in life are also equally unworthy of being called truth. "The sun will rise tomorrow", "the world will keep on spinning", "mankind is inherently evil", etc. These are a step up from an unsubstantiated belief. We've got some observation and experimentation involved in these. The Sun has never failed to rise. The world has never ceased to spin. And man's cruelty and malevolence toward one another and toward the world we live on has no shortage of examples to draw upon. But it isn't proven in a quantitative or qualitative sense. Only that which can be proven, over and over and over, should be given the coveted and elite title of "truth".

This is an uncomfortable reality for the ideologue or ideologist because it undermines their authority to speak on behalf of the ideology. It, potentially, undermines their individual or collective credibility. Typically there is only one form of combat an ideologue has against this argument: discredit and accuse. At this point the ideologue becomes dangerous to the truth because they will, on occasion, behave like demagogues - arousing the passions and prejudices of the people and flatly refusing the overwhelmingly objective reality. If anyone is curious about the factuality of my argument I simply encourage you to pick up a history book and start at the beginning.

Please - as always - continue to feel free to email me, leave comments, or give me a call. I cherish your thoughts and criticisms.

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?

the "ism" - our own personal neurosis

The preamble: I have this awful habit of starting books and not finishing them. I don't really read literature or fiction so this habit of mine can be pretty maddening sometimes. That's my disclaimer in saying that I will say, from time to time, that I read a particular book but I want to be clear that I may not have actually finished it. With all that being said:

The case: I read this book called "Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality" by a guy named Donald Miller. At some point in this book Don points out two very interesting ideas which provoke two very unsavory questions.

1. Human selfishness (or ego-centrism) is the root of all iniquity. It is this unchecked self-love that sits at the core of all human suffering and evil.

2. This human selfishness, the core of evil and suffering, is what produces ideologies which individuals integrate into their identities. These ideologies are indicative of the mental derangement existing in all of us.

As mentioned in the sidebar, ideologies are an "integrated belief system" that defines values, moderates behavior, and helps formulate the identity of the believer. If you thought about it for a while you might begin to consider an ideology as a pair of colored sunglasses. These glasses block certain effects of the Sun that are inconvenient and inconducive to our desires, but in turn ends up distorting the vision of reality. The shape and form of the world doesn’t much change under ideology, but it becomes tinted, shaded, and colored. Some aspects are harder to see, and are flushed out by the overwhelming tint of the ideology. Some aspects become impossible to see or distinguish. Ideology filters out those aspects of reality that are inconvenient or potentially “harmful” to the agenda of one’s self – but at the expense of truth.

An ideology can come in many forms but shows up most especially in political, social, and religious manifestations. These forms – often made taboo in sensitive environments (such as the workplace) due to the disruptive and potentially explosive nature of discussions based around them – are values-oriented and form a symbiotic-circle with one another. What I mean by that is this: a person's values will lead one to a particular ideology and will fuel the ideology until, at a particular turning point, the ideology begins to turn on the believer and takes an active role defining values, creating conformity and acting as an intrapersonal enforcement mechanism. Once an ideology begins to set the values-structure of a person, the ideology becomes part of the person’s identity and cannot become un-rooted without challenging (in the very least) or re-creating (in the most extreme and eventual cases) that person’s identity.

Most ideological systems are easily identified with the "ism". An "ism" is defined as a "system, doctrine, or theory" that is built around the joined ideology. You see it everywhere. Conservatism, communism, patriotism, Calvinism, racism, Catholicism, pacifism, terrorism, atheism, etc. Ideologies are the frameworks of beliefs and the gatekeepers of values. Of course, not all ideologies have an "ism" (such as "Christianity") and not all "isms" are ideological in nature (such as "autism"). But these ideologies and their isms are dangerous to anyone dedicated to truth.

Ideologies are dangerous because they do have a tendency to become dogmatic – allowing for no critical self-examination. In a sense they’re something of a developing neurosis where they begin to take over the mind’s ability to perceive reality objectively and, once securely in place, will begin to identify (or fabricate) deviant or enemy thought processes outside of the structure. Once the ideology has identified sufficient threats, it then spends all critical energies outward and builds a shield against any challenges to itself. Ascribing to any particular ideology makes it incredibly difficult to be intellectually honest about the reality in which we all live. Because it is inherently self-centric, ideology has a particularly misanthropic aspect to it, preferring to define and label – a divisive process creating a very “us and them” mindset. Even ideologies that have their roots in benign or philanthropic activities (such as pacifism or the abolitionism of the nineteenth century) can over time become incredibly divisive, mean-spirited, antagonistic and dogmatic.

The questions: What ideology or ism have you ascribed to? When did it happen? How have you changed since then? If provided with sufficient proof or evidence that this ideology was damaging you and hindering your search for the truth, would you feel comfortable abandoning the values structure that you've derived from your ideology? Could you cast it off easily? Or would you have to reshape your entire worldview and identity?

No easy answers... just hard questions.

let truth rule

Welcome to veritas regnum - latin for "the rulership of truth". As the subtitle suggests, what I'd like to use this blog for is a medium to discuss some of the more unsavory questions facing our heads and hearts. Moreover I want to ask the tough questions that try to cut through the difference between real truth and mere ideology.