I have recently been invited to participate in a discussion panel about Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins." So I have read the book. I have been reviewing many writings and commentaries regarding the accusations against Rob Bell himself, his book, the charge of universalism. I have even examined what seem to be radical statements questioning the legitimacy of Bell's salvation and consequently, his title as an evangelical. With this writing, I am taking the opportunity to deliberate various thoughts of mine and of other professionals. The articles and authors that follow I strongly recommend you spend time reading… their insights can develop your worldview as a rich basis for what you believe and how you interpret reality. (To read an article just click on the title and you will be linked directly to that article) I agree with many commentators that Bell is a likeable person and well-gifted speaker. But I think what I appreciate about Bell the most is that he really is savvy about where the Contemporary Christian culture is intellectually and spiritually seated. For this reason there is a lot to be learned from this book. This is proven in part by the amount of Christians that resonate with the language of this book. On a less cheerful note and with all due respect, this resonation also points out a status that, embarrassingly, much mainline Christian thought and discussion suffers from: anti-intellectualism (are you trying to say that the Contemporary Christian culture's intellectual and spiritual seat is anti-intellectualism? If so, I think that needs to be a little clearer). If for only one reason, I like this book as a catalyst to a discussion that is an anxiety at the heart of all contemporary church thought – an anxiety of doing it differently than the conservatives. It (the book or the anxiety?) finds its passion and missionary drive from rejecting the traditional orthodox Christianity and revamping it to a more congenial-to-life worldview. This is a topic that needs serious civil thought and deliberation, which is something Bell does not provide in this book "Love Wins." Reductio Ad Absurdum Bell has produced caricatures, and by doing so tried to make a mockery of views considered Traditional Orthodox Christianity. He, thereby, implicitly cheapens the doctrinal positions advocated in the Nicene and Apostolic Creed, the creeds most noted in Evangelicalism. It is school-boyish and just as intellectually uncouth as the excessive conservatives who caricatures a wrathful God extremely upset to all his subjects, soon going to throwing down the gauntlet of eternal torment and punishment to those He gave no chance for repentance because that is what a sovereign God would do. Bell's book is a careless reductio ad absurdum argument. Bell uses these caricatures in an effort to reduce the validity of traditional Christianity and then tries to show these caricatures as absurd. To be more precise, this is not even a poorly constructed reductio ad absurdum argument but rather just the reductio ad absurdum because there are no arguments that follow the caricatures. Mockery or belittlement is not an argument. This book is not a well constructed argument, in fact it is not even an argument, yet Bell seems to be hoping for some conclusions. Some have said that Bell could be the next C.S. Lewis or that the two men have many similarities; I just don't see this. Whenever C.S. Lewis wrote something incongruent to a traditional thought, he carefully, methodically, biblically, and theologically (maybe applied or gave) due diligence respectively to both seemingly opposing views. C.S. Lewis was much more than just a gifted rhetorician looking to move people; he used his aesthetic skills to promote rigorous arguments and deep thought. The Publisher Certainly Won! - John Mark Reynolds John, Director, Torrey Honor Institute - Biola University wrote this clever posting about how the publishing company, Harper Collins, is the real winner. I think that John is correct – this book (pamphlet as John refers to) was careless, poorly edited, not well thought through, and certainly unwarranted of any academic standards; yet it has expectations of a more encompassing and embracing interpretation of the Christian worldview. This book has major logical errors, misrepresents certain theological and philosophical ideologies, and This book, heavily lopsided with questions, is an irresponsible publishing. It has been given a status by some as a Socratic method of writing and thinking. I regard Socratic thinking as one of the finest ways of probing and forwarding thinking, but I do not think Bell's book deserves a stamp of Socratic methodology. Socrates asked leading questions; his pursuit was an honest one to truth. Bell's questioning is sarcastic flippancy; his quest is to undermine objectivity and encourage more "open-minded tolerance" of some of the sagely traditional thoughts he sees as "tragic" and "crushing." My suspicion is Socrates would have some questions for Bell regarding the responsibility of writing and publishing. Bell, The Book and a Candle – John Mark Reynolds Very insightful, I could deliberate on this article all day. It is full of thick thoughts and I had a hard time choosing one to enunciate on but here I go: Bell's god will not take "no" for an answer. Like some cosmic lounge lizard, He follows you for eternity until you give Him a sympathy date. Bell's god has more in common with Zeus, whose "love" always got what it wanted, than the Triune God of Scriptures. The good news about the God of the Bible is that He is nothing like Homer's Zeus: God will let you love somebody else. It is true that God will take no for an answer, it is impossible for God to force or choose for a free being, to accept His grace because, if love is to have any value, love demands a choice to the lover by the beloved. If God does not take but rather determines than either He is not a lover of his beloved or as John indicates above - Zeus it is. But this is comical… Like some cosmic lounge lizard, He follows you for eternity until you give Him a sympathy date. As if God has no self-respect – what kind of 'lover of his created' would God be if He appeased our narcissistic desires and egocentric timelines? Bell Book and Candle is a 1958 romantic comedy about a free spirited but unlucky in love witch, Gillian Holroyd, who, after watching him from a distance, admires Shep Henderson. Gillian learns that Shep is going to marry her college enemy Merle. So Gillian casts a love spell on Shep and ends up falling in love with him herself – but because of her love for Shep, Gillian will lose her powers. Eventually, all parties find out and hearts are broken. Bell is like Gillian (not because he is a witch of course) but because his "unlucky love" and now his "free spirit" have led him astray. Bell now feels he must choose a better "love" away from the over aggressive conservative background. However, in his efforts to cast a spell mitigating a new and robust Christianity, like Gillian's use of magic for her own status, Bell's theology is turning out a God that looks precariously like himself. Is this now magic or, in fact, is it a curse? This article is a good read! Hell? No One Will Go? Bell Said So? - Dr. Jerry L. Walls Dr. Walls has spent just over two decades applying academic thinking to Heaven, Hell, Eschatology and Soteriology, and admirably, works very hard to be objective in his writing about these logically and intellectually demanding topics. Dr. Walls breaks down three ranges of universalism – hopeful universalism, convinced universalism and necessary universalism. On one end of the spectrum is the view we can call "hopeful universalism," which as the name suggests, is the stance of hoping and praying that universalism might turn out to be true. We can't be sure it is, nor can we be sure it is not, but we should at least hope for it. Second, there is the view we might called "convinced universalism," which is the view that everybody will in fact be saved. While the reality of human freedom makes it at least possible that some will not be saved, we can be pretty sure that as a matter of fact all will in fact repent in the end. Finally, there is the view we can call "necessary universalism," which is the strongest position on the universalist scale. This is the view that the only position that is even consistent with God's perfect love and power is universalism, so it is the only view that is even possibly true… Be that as it may, the only sense in which Bell is a universalist is the first of these options. While he points out that there are noted spokesmen for universalism in the history of theology, and he admits that it would make a "better story" if all ended up reconciled to God (110-111), he stops far short of saying he believes it must turn out this way, or even that he is confident that it will. I am going to let Dr. Walls explain by way of you reading the article how he determines this position. He is not necessarily in favor of Bells opinions but I believe Dr. Walls entire thesis is that, if any worthwhile discussion is to be had, the facts must be precise… something both sides lack. Can A Loving God Send People to Hell? - Debate Dr. William Lane Craig vs. Dr. Ray Bradley Dr. Craig is a scholar, academician, Evangelical spokesmen, debater and research professor at Biola University. Dr. Craig spends much of his time researching and debating all over the U.S. and abroad, arguing for the validity of God and the Christian worldview. In this debate, Dr. Craig and Dr. Bradley have an excellent exchange of why heaven, a place with free creatures but without sin and suffering, would not be feasible for God to have actualized without first having an antecedent world where those free creatures freely chose to be there. If there was such a place it would have a population of just one, because you cannot guarantee that, in a world of free creatures, they would all choose the same thing – namely God. Another article, very academic in nature but well worth the time is: Politically Incorrect Salvation – Dr William Lane Craig Lecture – Pluralism, a Defense of Religious Exclusivism – Dr. Alvin Plantinga Dr. Alvin Plantinga is a retired Professor of Philosophy; his last position was the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Plantinga is a distinguished Christian Philosopher whose work in the early 70's was the start to revitalizing the Evangelical Christianity Worldview back into an intellectual public square and academic prominence. Exclusivism is rarely understood or represented properly. I have listened to many arguments defending an inclusivist position and refuting or challenging exclusivism, but the propositions assigned to represent exclusivism generally take on an overly strong conservativism. Dr. Plantinga gives a lecture illustrating the fallibility of assigning these overly strong conservative propositions that allow for false representation of exclusivism. Dr. Plantinga then gives an argument for the logical and biblical reason to support exclusivism. Conclusion A book like Bell's does speaks volumes about the lack of intellectual power that postmodern thoughts and existential expressions are capable of developing Epistemological Relativism – this ideology is a derivative of postmodern thought. It can be determined by vagueness, or a rhetorical flipping of questions, illustrated by statements like "I don't know what do you think?" or "can we really know for sure?" This skepticism too often, seems justifiable because it gets mistaken for having a disposition of being humbly tolerant. The postmodern Christian is skeptical about the overuse of objective facts and certainties of doctrine found in "traditional" Christianity because history reveals that by these is a formation of religious monsters. Honestly, there have been inferences promoted as objective truths and soteriological doctrine that fall short of a justifiable epistemic standard, and have lead to dismissive attitudes and caused heinous crimes in the name of Christianity. But to withdraw to an anti-intellectual position of epistemological relativism (saying we can't know for sure) is intellectually and morally invalid. It means, as Christians, we are not being honest to the doctrines nor the pursuit for clear understanding. Existentialism - is an ideology that prefers to retain its knowledge and "view of life" through experiential propositions. This ideology is known for having a logo of "Existence precedes Essence." In Rob's book and among much of today's churches, this thought has infiltrated the theology and practices of the church. Love Wins really is about everything and nothing; Rob's experiences are relative to his experiences. His whole book is a circular argument of sorts; my experience informs my experience - a sort of empirical standard for empirical purposes. It is the same as me saying - I am the world's most leading authority on Rob Bell because I know I am, and I am also the standard of my authority. Rob's existence informs his essence of who he is. But traditional Christianity says you are made in the image of God therefore you have an essence, and that essence, however close to the image of God you have submitted it to become, reflects the way you exist. For the book, the question is still left begging: how good is Rob's knowledge, intuitive and perceptual capacities, analytical skills, critical thinking and so on? It would seem that rational thought and reasoned proposition is not necessary, just the ability to clearly articulate your own experiences. Rob writes his book imparting knowledge consequential of his experiential relevance and not from a reasoned worldview. I mentioned at the beginning of this article that the contemporary church has moved from a position of serious intellectual theology and philosophical rigor to that of determining how Christianity is more congenial to life. At the expense of a "narrow-minded, conservative sounding" cliché, this ought to be distress language to Evangelical leaders of a disposition of existentialism. There are serious theological and philosophical issues that the book mentions but never makes serious attempt at answering. It is hard to trust a book that reads more like biography of experience and personal interpretation than one expounding in some polemic manner. This book, however, is not a surprise. The indulgence towards experiential relevance and the dismissive disposition of reason and logical aptitude will turn out a work that expressed passion, a misconceived tolerance, a narrative more charitable to its inhabitants, and a nature of God that calms our own emotive nature.
inaccurately references history (John points out Origen in his article).
Monday, May 30, 2011
An Anthology of Love Wins
Friday, April 15, 2011
New Location
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Imagination… more Important than Knowledge?
When I was a young man in my teenage years, I can recall a conversation I had with a gentlemen concerning imagination. He dogmatically argued with my brother and I that imagination was an evil thing, a product of Satan. If his assertion is correct, then I think he aided me sinning because I found myself trying to imagine this piece of knowledge - that imagination is evil. I can remember thinking that this cannot be possible, because it took imagination to help wrap my mind around some of the more abstract or esoteric pieces of information that we find in reality. Of course, this view is extreme and derives more from his lack of knowledge than his imagination. There is plenty of indictment and finger-pointing toward recent histories suppression of the authenticity of human aesthetics; because of this, aesthetics like imagination are now being promoted as "more important than knowledge". I want to test this way of thinking/imagining and provide various pushback regarding some of the writing and emphasis toward imagination. Some thinkers are challenging the traditional perception of the anthropology of humanity. These thinkers characterize humans as primarily existential beings best retrieving knowledge through aesthetic means whereas traditionally humans are seen as primarily cognitive beings retrieving knowledge through rational means. Lets for arguments sake, assume that imagination is more important than knowledge and that imagination is a determining factor to understanding reality, could I not be justified then by saying that I imagine knowledge as more important than knowledge and because I was able to imagine it, it is so? This statement about imagination is a self-refuting statement – it cancels out its own proposition. Looking at the statement "imagination is more important than knowledge" still leaves the question more important to what? It cannot be knowledge itself as the existence of the imagination presupposes the existence of knowledge, so without knowledge, imagination is non existence. Secondly the statement is incorrectly worded; it should say "imagination is more important than reason". Because imagination presupposing the existence of knowledge, it follows that imagination yields to knowledge as a way of existing and having purpose. Imagination and reasoning are both cognitive processes to knowledge. Generally the context that comes with this statement is that imagination is more important to the discovery or learning of reality than is reason, we will continue to see if this is the case. Opposite of Narrow… Imagination? Imagination is seen as widening the mind or to see into reality with a greater depth of understanding. The inference here is that there is real freedom; freedom to the thinker, freedom to understand reality and freedom to advancement. The freedom here is an unleashing of the imagination, reason holds back and is narrow-minded therefore imagination becomes the more valued cognitive faculty because of its ability to see (in every sense of the word see) or determine reality. But I would like to challenge this sense of freedom; if imagination is the guide to determining reality then whatever one can imagine becomes a justified true belief to reality. If imagination determines belief found in reality, reason as a cognitive faculty does not exist. However this type of imagination is relative, it promotes that two people could imagine complete opposite contradictory beliefs and both accepted as reasonable beliefs. This of course is illogical and therefore does not reflect reality. Nothing is free to determine whatever it wants, everything in reality is in relation to one other, it is for this reason imagination is part of our cognitive faculties, and it has the ability, within reason, to help conceptualize or see reality. Introspection Imagination is a kind of introspective process of the mind, applying its creative, conceptual, visionary and mystical skills to information of the particular thinker. If we posit that imagination is more important than knowledge then my introspection can dictate my view of reality. I determine individually, what constitutes reality and its cosmic parameters through the process of my imagination. Whatever I can imagine is true and valid. Apart from taking on a conceited role now of divinity, however this posits a non-static reality in which to determine any truth. If there is not a static reality to determine truth, than anarchy will be the natural order of reality. This also then promotes anti-intellectualism as confusion and fantasy are the permitted authors of reality narrated by the individual imagination. Postmodernism is definitely the culprit behind today's push to see imagination become the new authority of belief and standard for determining reality. With a complete mistrust for reason, knowledge, objective truth, logic and certainty; postmodern turns to existentialism and accepts its values of imagination, experience, emotions and feelings to reveal a correct understanding of reality. "Imagination is more important than knowledge", really places a false dichotomy between reason and imagination. Truth hones knowledge. Reason and imagination work simultaneously within the rationalizing cognitive process of this valid knowledge allowing our thinking to be valid, meaningful and all encompassing. Knowledge - justified true belief - gives liberty to the imagination to then conceptualize and envision this knowledge in our given reality. Because knowledge exists imagination has something to apply its creativity to. Einstein was wrong about imagination being more important than knowledge. "imagination is not more important than knowledge, it compliments knowledge"
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Over-Ruled yet somehow Under-Ruled
In an article published today February 15, 2011 in the New York Times entitled "Few Focus on Religion in One Cairo Neighborhood" the settlement is that there are more pressing economical, political and, social needs that will do more for helping the people of Egypt than that of any religious structure. I have highlighted below some of the comments from the Egyptians living in an area called Imbabah located north of Cairo along the Nile River. I am not, in this small observation, wanting to discuss the rights or wrongs of the religious regimes and political parties that have been in power in this area. However, after reading this article it left me with questions and concerns about the view that is projected on religion. The following… "Bread, social justice and freedom," the 21-year-old college graduate said. "What's religious about that?" "The last thing youth are thinking about is religion," said Mr. Mitwalli, who hides his cigarettes from a family where all the women wear the most conservative veil. "It's the last thing that comes up. They need money, they need to get married, a car, and they don't have anything to do with anything else. They'll elect whoever can deliver that." It remains an oddity of the long struggle between the government and the Muslim Brotherhood that both an aging opposition and a corrupt state spoke the same language of moral conservatism. It has left Egypt more ostensibly religious over the years. Measured by sentiments here, it may have also provoked a backlash among youth recoiling at the prospect of yet more rules promised by an even more stringent application of Islamic law. "In my view?" asked Osama Hassan, a high school student who joined the protests in their climactic days. "We need more freedom not less. The whole system has to change." Freedom, in the sense of no rules or a position of autonomy, (I am sure not partial to Egypt's current dilemma but wherever the people feel their individual rights or popular sovereignty are denied them) takes a natural precedence and becomes common theme. A certain "begging of the question" still remains, do religious rules bring a negation of freedom? I find the media and other entities infringing on a hasty Revolting sentiments toward religion are understandable when "rules" are synonymous with oppression; but what if the responsibility of a religion where the individual rights, social and cultural civility and an objective of unity for people? Unfortunately, "moral coercion" even happens inside a religion and always because of a misplacement of responsibility. This institution, religion, when understood properly and initiated correctly provides the kind of ruled platform that allows "bread, social justice and freedom" to become a possibility. For media or any other entities to ghettoize religion and its pure responsibility, withholds any possibility of renewal for Egypt and any other revolting country.
generalization fallacy here. This generalization places a stigma on all religions, as if their goal is the suppression and censorship of a nation by compulsion of a moral framework expressed through a dogmatic intolerance. This is a semantic error, as freedom should not be defined as an autonomous position, doing what one pleases. Rules provide a structure of conduct that allows people to freely participate in that nation. Rules are, in fact, freeing because they are a judiciary of people's individual rights (life, liberty and property) therefore rules represent unity of civility and contradict coercion. New York Times; "Few Focus on Religion in One Cairo Neighborhood" By Anthony Shadid; Published: February 15, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
A Position of Neutrality
In every era there are motivating factors or values that seem to emerge and great principles are then placed on this peer pressure of "normality". These principles naturally give way to dogmatism and an enthusiastic evangelism of "dude, that's like… so yesterday". Society verifies it, culture lives it and usually humanity suffers from it. Well for the church, it also has acquiesced to the new normality sustained by a contemporary and postmodern tolerance of everything equal. ……. As I think over my following comments, I find myself faced with a dilemma. I sincerely want the modern-day evangelical church leaders and attendees to hear me out; however my words stand the chance of being nothing more than ink on paper because the modern-day church, as a subscriber to contemporary tolerance, see's my challenging of opinion as being intolerant. I ask for your indulgence and that you hear me out. I think now more than ever the church is more culturally isolated than it has ever been. One of the frustrations our think tank contends with is that the contemporary church believes they are more culturally savvy and socially aware than ever before; unfortunately this belief is merited by the contemporary conception of tolerance. The modern-day Church is working hard at a new zeitgeist, one that rejects a reputation that suggests confrontation, didactic responsibility, and difference of opinion in social and cultural livelihood. By way of emphasis the modern-day Church is instead focusing on expressing an existential vibrancy through philanthropic efforts, loving your neighbor, serving the poor and, strong community fellowship as a more accurate Christian reputation. These reputational emphases are exactly what are expected when "toleration" most values acceptance. This is why I have sympathies to the modern-day Christian church, it is the subtly of this contemporary tolerance that has snuck in and corrupted their theology. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview acquiescing to a reputation of neutrality. Neutrality As a thinker this new effort confuses me. This neutrality seems to take away from its strength, having an intellectually rigors worldview that is able to answer questions of reality, greatly define social structure and significantly contribute in the cultural milieu, only because of its exclusivity rather than its neutrality. This begs the question "can neutrality give this worldview a respectable place for people to place their belief or faith in"? The question, although given the circumstance is a valid one, is an illogical question. If a worldview is neutral, that is it stands for nothing, what would there be to believe in? If a worldview is neutral, accepting everything, than you don't "believe in", it would just be a prior knowledge. One of the serious concerns for the modern-day church is that a position of neutrality, believing in nothing and accepting everything, removes you from the public square. The serious part is that with a zeitgeist that dismisses confrontation, didactic responsibility and difference of opinion in social and cultural livelihood, your worldview then lacks the ability to speak to your existential vibrancy. Another distress point to this kind of neutral tolerance is a pluralistic worldview that, having a predetermined value of epistemic ignorance, accepts all religious ideas as equal. This pluralistic worldview suggests to be tolerant is to extracting oneself from all confrontational issues creating a social and cultural unity. The distress point is when two opposing views conflict with one another, this reality suggests that one view exceeds the other therefore leaving the "all idea tolerance" unworkable. This presupposes that to be tolerant to society we should engage ideas and not treat them equal. For those who also are thinkers, we recognize the real adversity of this neutral tolerance the Christian Church has implemented is its default guard – it is "unchristian" to question or confront so to confront or questions tolerance, it also is "unchristian". Ironically enough the liberating hero of this invalid tolerance is reason itself speaking into the existential vibrancy.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Reduced to Pragmatism
With an article like the following, there is always the conundrum of appearing legalistic or at least out-dated. But this topic is far too important to simply avoid, so I am going to try to audition for a role of respecting people but being elitist to ideas - traditional tolerance. Once again, we look at tolerance and the contemporary version perverting our epistemological position of reality. Today's conception of pluralism I believe generates its ideology from the contemporary definition of tolerance, all ideas are equal and given to the individual. I want to start with a more intellectually rich proposal of pluralism from a Veritas Forum¹ I heard, where Prof. Mark Lilla explain the idea of a Pluralistic society "when I think of the term pluralism, I want to distinguish it in my mind from… Diversity and Multi-Culturalism… but rather as a stronger term having to do with a certain idea of what society is… two sort of competing general classes of ideas about society; (one) an idea of society that is whole and integrated and therefore to understand anything about that society or what is above that society or below that society would require full knowledge and integration with everything else we know about that society. (two) The pluralistic idea about society suggest social life isn't like that, human life isn't like that, intellectual life isn't like that, there are different levels and different spheres, things that are inappropriate in one area and not in another and that's not a bad thing. …now as the discussion goes on tonight we might find ourselves talking about the struggle between these different conceptions of society where; (one) everything has to connect to everything else and come under one single idea and (two) the other where it is plausible for us to conceive of different sphere's of government, different groups of people according to different principle's without feeling that somehow we have to reconcile them in one final coherent picture" Reductionism is becoming more popular in American thought as both anti-intellectualism and post modernism are blindly claiming the heroics to America's desired epistemology. Reductionism is an approach to understanding the nature of something complex (whatever the degree of complexity) by reducing it to simpler or more fundamental state. In the above common description of pluralism, a form of reductionism is taking place. The wholeness and integration that a coherent ideology contributes is being reduced to the subjectivity of individual preferences or majority social desire. The complexity of unity that an exclusive ideology necessitates is being reduced to an impossibility and is replaced with pragmatic desires. The question now is, are the replaced pragmatic desires complex enough to bring unity to such a diverse society? Sometimes I think complexity is being confused with complicated; there must be a worldview that is exclusive, because to say that there is no exclusive worldview is to be an exclusive worldview. This reductionism is a form of avoidance because to have humanity come under one unifying ideology, at face value, seems restrictive and suppressive. We can see how the contemporary tolerance of equality of ideas is used as a value to support this kind of pluralism. Here are two other reductive arguments I have constructed and refer to them as "Reductio ad Incertus" and "Reductio ad Indifferens": Reductio ad Incertus - Reducing to Uncertainty It is suggested in the above "tolerable" description, that simply recognizing uncertainty is a tolerant disposition, therefore giving way to a healthier society – a pluralistic society. But if I am uncertain of something, then I cannot be sure how to tolerate what it is I do not know; all I know is that I don't know. It does seem however that someone has to tolerate me while in that state of uncertainty, but that would require them to have an epistemic value of at-least some certainty, a sort of exclusive understanding. Reductio ad Indifferens – Reducing to Indifference What about the implication in the above "tolerable" description that recognizing indifference found in the" different levels and different spheres all according to different principle's" as being "tolerable" to a society? America's desire to be neutral and open-minded should not include close-minded. In our previous blog, I reasoned that tolerance is not a moral standard itself but to have to tolerate something presuppose there is a moral standard one is being tolerate of. Claiming to be tolerant of differences (accepting them as equal) is turning a blind eye to moral and immoral behavior; this of course is evident in the current argument that no one can impose a universal objective moral on humanity. A social milieu reduced to pragmatism and methodologies because of a non-working tolerance will not bring strength or healing to a skeptical and diverse society. Only by rejecting that all ideas are equal, society can create a civil forum where voices can practice tolerance. Where the complexity of unity can be sought for, tensions can be unbound and progression is societies to embrace. To attempt to function with logical and illogical ideas as egalitarian has traditionally been referred to as "mad".
Saturday, January 1, 2011
A Quest Resulting in Bamboozlement
It's all the rage these days… tolerance, but every time I hear mantra for its ethical advocacy, the tune has an odd harmony. There are many visions a society can be proud of that allow for an uncompromised future of superior value; however its contemporary definition does just the opposite. Wikipedia, a common place of reference, describes tolerance as such: In general usage, tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose beliefs or personal characteristics (race, religion, nationality, etc.), differ from one's own. The above reference reveals a quest for American society to, through the use of "tolerance," gain a disposition of self-sufficiency or individual independence. In the American mind, becoming an open and free society suggests we be egalitarian of all people's individuality and all ideas, making tolerance the projected value for constructing such a society. This contemporary definition differs from the traditional definition which says that all people are equal but all ideas are not. There is some partial agreement with the above definition; there is no need for racism, therefore rejecting no one because of their race or nationality; but there is a contradiction in the above reference that makes it a self-refuting proposition. Can I be egalitarian to all ideas, accepting them as having all equal value? Take for example the following statement; "all ideas are equal and one is not better than the other". Is that quote equal to "all ideas are not equal and one is better than the other"? It is obvious, that the "tolerant" quote, the first one, believes itself better than at least one idea… that all ideas are not equal. The very idea or proposition, that tolerance means an equality of ideas is intolerant because it places itself in authority above all other ideas. It is only tolerant to reveal another contradiction of a categorical nature. Contemporary tolerance is expressing a categorical right that tolerance (equal ideas) is a moral obligation and intolerance (unequal ideas) is inhumane. The very notion of being tolerant presupposes there is a moral standard to be tolerant of; so tolerance then cannot be that moral standard itself. To be your own moral standard would sound like, "it is morally wrong to say that something is morally wrong." It is self defeating. We must also remember that we do not tolerate good we only tolerate some harms to prevent greater harms. A patient will tolerate the extraction of a tooth to prevent an even greater pain or suffering. A society will tolerate bad logic to maintain a bad political correctness… all ideas are equal. This last example reveals once more that tolerance is not a moral compass. Tolerance does appear to have social value but morality depicts that value for a society. Anti-Social Result: The above Wikipedia reference uses such language as fair, objective and permissive attitude. Fair: I think I know what it is to be fair; yet accepting tolerance as all ideas being equal, allows the false to overlook the true, the unjust to infringe on the just, and the irrational to impede the rational. This does not allow fairness to evolve but rather promote an intolerant society infringing on human equality. Objective: Objectiveness can only be reached if a society is willing to allow the vetting of ideas. The very existence of this form of tolerance is a rejection of objective, absolute, and exclusive claims, only trying to perform this task as an objective, absolute, exclusive claim. Also intolerant! Permissive Attitude: The question; "can tolerance, as equality of ideas, honestly be performed in reality?" Can one except that murder is both right and wrong, or stealing is both acceptable and unacceptable? This form of logic, the "both and" method of perception, fails to provide society with rational that produces a permissible attitude. Two contradictory ideas cannot both be true and be expected to provide clarity for the individuals in that society to perform from. Peter Kreeft², Philosopher at Boston College defines tolerance as being egalitarian to people but elitist to ideas. It becomes impossible, with today's popular definition, to create a flourishing society with truly advancing ideas, if all are equal. Ideas are highly contagious and can act as either as an antidote or a virus to ones reality. One idea can build an empire or bring an empire down. Truth is the only harmony that can keep reality coherent and allow ideas to flourish.
Posts
