The Search for Intelligent Life Amongst Dissenting Voices

Often times, I am disappointed that people so easily dismiss opposing viewpoints as non-intelligent.

One of my favorite blogs (13.7), has an article that although is well-written, does this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/11/04/131064192/lose-your-wimp-embrace-your-intellectual#more

This particular posting implies that one has to be a liberal to be intelligent. But I have also seen conservatives do the same thing. And in light of the latest political spin on the election, I think this topic is especially relevant.

The mistake often being made is that intelligence should be gauged based upon the logical coherence of the conclusions of an argument to presuppositions.

For instance, conservatives generally hold to the presupposition that man should be held accountable to his actions. The religious conservative will usually hold presuppositions that man is "bent" towards selfishness and greed (the idea of "original sin").

As a result Conservatives logically conclude that man's actions aren't excused because of a poor upbringing and social environment. Therefore Conservatives are more likely to support imprisonment and even the death penalty over rehabilitation.

BTW, I know Christians are usually lumped into the right, however I believe that a true grace walking Christian will be a stronger advocate of rehabilitation. I always say, "I'm as conservative as the Word of God and as liberal as the love of God."

Where it gets difficult is that the philosophical presuppositions that give us political, philosophical and religious worldviews aren't usually empirically verifiable. I think religion does the best job of recognizing this by calling it faith. But is it not also faith to ultimately believe that man's ultimate longing is for freedom (Neo-conservative presuppositions) or that man is primarily a product of his environment (liberalism)? I'd love to see equal recognition that these presuppositions are held in faith in politics and philosophy. Even science has this problem. Just look at its speculations on the multiverse theory or even its dogma on the origins of life. The origins issue is a unique event that occurred once. It can't be ultimately tested in a laboratory and repeated. This is a demand of empiricism.

The bottom line is that I have met intelligent and stupid people on both sides of the philosophical and political spectrums. It is closed-minded dogma to dismiss people as non-intelligent simply because they disagree with my worldview.

If a person has consistent reason connecting their presuppositions with their conclusions, we can at least say that they are intelligent. This doesn't make them right or wrong, only logical. BTW, truth does exclude arguments that are logically inconsistent.

Beyond logical consistency, we get into the biases that often shape the faith that undermines our presuppositions. At that point, we are in the territories of volition, the visceral and the heart. This is why it is said, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."

Sometimes we believe in our presuppositions because they make us feel comfortable and secure or are otherwise to our advantage. We must have the courage to believe the truth no matter where it leads and the love of it to pursue it at all costs. Since loving an "it" is ultimately impossible (a misuse of the overused word "love"), does it not make sense that a loving God is ultimately the truth we seek?

Dangers In Under-communicating

One could argue that I over-communicate. But Eugene Robinson’s article is why:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/02/race_and_the_tea_partys_ire_107805.html

I’m politically an independent and not interested in pushing my political views on this blog, so please listen to me with an open mind, regardless of your political persuasion.

If you go to the Tea Party’s web site (http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Mission.aspx), you will see that it stands for the following issues:

• ·         Fiscal Responsibility
• ·         Constitutionally Limited Government
• ·         Free Markets 

As anyone can see, these three line items have absolutely NOTHING to do with racism. So why does Mr. Robinson connect the Tea Party with racism?

When the Tea Party makes statements like “we want to take back America” and “we want to return America to the American people”, he speculates that the Tea Party wants to take back America from minorities or return it to a pre-civil rights era.

So if a party legitimately believed in these three bullet points and had NO racial prejudices, how could they communicate these views without getting distracted by the allegations of discrimination?

Let’s put aside those who will shout “racism” and “bigotry” just to muddy the waters and advance their agendas. Those folks are beyond reasoning. Addressing them is like what Jesus called “casting your pearls before swine”.

But what about legitimate misunderstandings like Mr. Robinson’s? I believe that the Tea Party is mis-communicating by under-communicating. If I were a Tea Party member, I’d say something like, “We want to take back America from the big Government politicians.” I’d even communicate disclaimers like, “Belief in a smaller, more responsible, accountable and limited Government, is Constitutional. It is a belief that all of us, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc., can believe in.”

But such communication is virtually “footnoted” and footnotes can be laborious to read. Thanks for reading.

Open Mind, Open World

I'm a musician. And unlike most musicians that I've met, I'm very "geeky" about what is "under the hood" of music in terms of music theory and analysis.

As a result, I tend to get bored with your average commercial music. The only mainstream music I listen to is Contemporary Christian. I seem to be able to look past the musical limitations probably because of the message and the fact that I can listen to it in worship to God.

But music that obsesses me almost always has a very technical side to it. Usually, it is technical combined with melodicism. I see such music as holistic, meaning that it is both propositional (music theory) and visceral (melodic). But sometimes, I'm simply listening to jazz fusion and loving it.

People who don't understand it call it "wierd" but I see them as being like people who watch a 3-D movie without 3-D glasses. It looks strange to them because they lack something very valuable.

Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. But at the same time, open it enough to not simply dismiss things that you don't like or understand. Sometimes what we call wierd, is really amazing. Sometimes our derogatory labels, say more about our ignorance than they do about the objects of our criticisms.

Free to Not Have All the Answers

Looking at John 4, when Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman, I am struck by how Jesus didn’t take the simplest and most direct path in communicating to her.

While the whole chapter could have been greatly abbreviated by Him meeting her and simply telling her something like “I am the Messiah and here’s the proof. I know that you have had 5 husbands…”, instead He takes a more ambiguous path.

He starts out asking her for a drink of water. He then claims He can offer her “living water”. This is an ambiguous statement, proven by her following questions. This pattern continues. He keeps saying things to her that are less than direct. He purposefully says things to make her ask questions. He is inspiring her her think.

Where is God when we suffer? Where is God when we are in the valley? Where is He when we are on the mountain top? He reveals enough of Himself for us to ask the questions and to think but not enough to prevent us from seeking and knocking.

“Ask and it shall be given to you, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened to you” – Matthew 7:7

We seem to complain when presented with the closed doors and the open questions. But without them, we can neither seek or ask.

When we present Christ to the world, we often try to open the doors for them, giving them answers instead of questions.

But in John 4, we see just one of many, many examples found all over Scripture (look at God’s answer to Job in the whirlwind) where God doesn’t give us answers but questions. He presents closed doors so that we’ll have something to open.

If you’ve ever played hide n seek, you know that you spoil the game to have the seeker close their eyes and count to 100, only to open them and find you standing in front of them.

When a baby bird is born, it has to use its beak to peck away at the egg. The temptation for a compassionate human observer is to help it break away the egg. However, if we were to do such a thing, it would die. It builds up its strength by pecking away at the egg.

To be a witness does not consist in engaging in propaganda, nor even in
stirring people up, but in being a living mystery. It means to live in
such a way that one’s life would not make sense if God did not exist.
Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard

As Stanley Hauerwas writes,

What is crucial is not that Christians know the truth, but that they be the truth.

That truth is a living mystery, inspiring people to think, loving them to soften their hearts. We are free not to always have the answers but to be the question.

Death By Contentment

I've seen it too many times.... a musician who has been playing for many years who has not grown beyond the skill level of a beginner. What happens to cause this?

Many times as the person is learning their instrument, they get to a point where they can play some songs and become content.... TOO content. Furthermore, they lack the curiosity and creativity to "question their instrument". For instance, on a guitar, they don't think to ask, "What if I were to tune the guitar to an alternative tuning and learn to play it?" or "What if I learned a new scale shape a month?", etc...

The benefits of contentment are obvious. But these are its detriments. Beyond them, notice the lack of questioning that comes from it. Has life itself dulled you into such a sense that you are content with your perceptions of the world? Or do you have a natural curiosity that comes from a sense of awe and wonder, coupled with the humility to realize that because of human frailty, you must always question at least yourself?

Such questioning not only makes for a great musician, but for a great human being. Don't be content with the answers. They are often times disguised questions waiting to be discovered by someone not content with anything less than the depth of truth.

Truth Without A Christ Context

LeRon Shults, former professor of theology at Bethel Theological Seminary, wrote:

From a theological perspective, this fixation with propositions can easily lead to the attempt to use the finite tool of language on an absolute Presence that transcends and embraces all finite reality. Languages are culturally constructed symbol systems that enable humans to communicate by designating one finite reality in distinction from another. The truly infinite God of Christian faith is beyond all our linguistic grasping, as all the great theologians from Irenaeus to Calvin have insisted, and so the struggle to capture God in our finite propositional structures is nothing short of linguistic idolatry.

This is a fantastic thought but woefully incomplete. This is truth without the context of Christ. Yes, Christianity (and all the major monotheistic religions) confirm that God is infinite and beyond description. However, if an infinite God wants to communicate to a finite being, He will limit Himself in that revelation.

When a parent speaks to a child, do they use their "native" adult language? Maybe that parent holds a doctorate degree. Do they use high-brow academic language when speaking to their toddler? Aren’t family physicians taught to limit their technical jargon when communicating to their patients?

Christianity says that the infinite God has revealed Himself in a finite way. This is profound when you consider that this finite way was in the physical form of Jesus Christ.

Christ is the ultimate set of propositions. The Scriptures literally call Him “The Word”. The very statement “There are no absolutes.” is an absolute statement.

With the above said, let me also write against the other extreme. God cannot and should not be reduced only to a set of propositions. The scriptures describe this “Word” as living, walking, breathing, talking, dying and resurrecting. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind and loved all. Unlike other gods who claim to love us, He proved it by giving His life, something your average god can’t do.

BTW, this answers the age-old philosophical question, “Can God create a rock that He can’t lift?” Yes He can and He did. He is infinite so He CAN limit Himself. He HAS limited Himself so that we can know Him. We cannot know the infinite. This doesn't mean He is limited in ability, only in presentation to us.

In other words this God who is infinite in ability, has limited His will. The Godliest thing we can do is to do the same. THIS is why belief in the Christian God is tied to morality, character and integrity.

But people that reduce God to just black and white, tend to be dogmatic out of what appears to me to be a sense of insecurity. I think they are insecure with NOT knowing. This is antithetical to the idea of faith.

Faith is a moderation of belief. It is to believe something enough to not be a persistent, consistent skeptic but to doubt it enough to not be dogmatic. Anything else is extremism of belief. At least that’s what I believe, but I can’t be for sure.

The What of Science, the Why of Religion

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/09/08/129723362/god-and-no-god-mongering-a-new-cycle-of-science-vs-religion-begins-anew#more says the following:

Garner in fact quotes Ferris along these lines. Following his God-mongering comment, Ferris writes: "Cosmology has more than enough to do trying to figure out how the universe works without also flattering itself that it is going to tell us why. Religious systems are inherently conservative, science inherently progressive… [It doesn’t] seem likely or even desirable to imagine that they are headed for some sort of rapprochement. This may be an instance where good walls make good neighbors.”

In other words, science is best equipped to answer the questions of “what?” and “how?” while religion is best equipped to address the question of “why?”. This is why science has virtually nothing to say about our morality, yet religion has tons to say there. Morality is tied to purpose. Purpose is tied to a purpose maker. The million dollar question is whether or not that purpose maker is a transcendent God or left to each individual.

This is why I laugh at the atheist who says they reject belief in God because of some transcendent moral code. The more they affirm such a transcendent moral code, the more they affirm God’s very existence. To say that it is wrong for an innocent little baby to suffer in a world where there is no God, is equivalent to saying that the Government doesn’t exist but failing your taxes is still against the law.

There IS a reason why it is wrong for an innocent little baby to suffer. Life has a purpose. That purpose is not yours or mine.