Diversity Speaks of Another

E Pluribus Unum. Out of the many, one. Ravi Zacharias says that all philosophy is the search for unity within diversity.

How can you have diversity without an idea? For instance, if you look at other people, you will see an idea with infinite variations of expression. Whether we are looking at Brad Pitt, Nancy Pelosi, Jim Belushi, Miley Cyrus, Betty White, Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods or Donald Trump, we are seeing diverse people who share the 'ideas' found in the definition of what it means to be human beings.

They all have arms and legs, have to breathe, sleep and eat, have the same core needs, need to be loved and want to love. They all have the same basic hopes, dreams, ambitions, temptations, weaknesses, etc.... Yet people are diverse. Just looking at the examples I gave, you have people who are old and people who are young, females, males, white, black, mixed, intelligent and not so bright...


To be human is to share in an idea. In music, we have infinite variation also. Edgar Varese defined music as 'organized sound'. That definition is pretty close but not perfect. After all, the siren ringing we'd hear when a train is coming to a crossing, or the sound of emergency sirens are also organized in the sense that they pulse at a constant rhythm.

There is something more intangible in the music. Music is a a flow of ideas..... ideas that only make sense to a mind. Music is thematic and tells a story. It repeats ideas to hook the listener. It uses a certain degree of contrast to keep itself from having the monotony of a siren. Music is an idea.

Ideas can only be understood by a mind. If diversity screams 'IDEA', then 'IDEA' screams 'GOD'. If there is no God, then tell me why diversity exists at all, or tell me why everything isn't so random as to be chaotic. I can envision a world devoid of God being birthed by some natural process if every human was either identical clones of one another, or so different from one another that we couldn't even call each being a human because we couldn't be expected to have ANYTHING in common.

Imagining this second scenario, imagine one person being born with no such thing as legs and feet. Maybe they have wheels. Imagine the next person not being born, but being 'hatched' and having eyes in the back of their head, never needing to eat, because their body has mastered photosynthesis. The possibilities would be endless, the world would be full of monsters. If such a world existed, and there WAS a God, its creation would yield the reflection of a grand monster.

But instead, we have a world that yields themes. The sun can be counted to rise, shine and fall each and every day we live. But what that day yields in all of its detail will be unique to itself, never occurring again. That is a theme and themes are written by composers.

Diversity speaks of another different from itself. E Pluribus Unum. Out of the many one God.

Listen for a Who

In the classic Dr. Seuss book, “Horton Hears a Who”, an elephant discovers a tiny world in a speck of dust. None of the animals can hear the life that he hears so they dismiss Horton as a nut case and try to take the little speck of dust away.

If you've read this blog enough by now, you'll know that I believe in asking the "why?" questions. I was probably the annoying kid in the backseat of the car asking my parents, “Why do you always drive over the speed limit?  Why do we slow down for cops? Why can’t I drive?”

Often times I find we focus on the “what?” questions without diving into the “why?” questions. I can explain this blog you are reading to be a series of digital 0’s and 1’s (binary) that are electronically represented to your computer’s CPU and digitally interpreted as text and computer instructions that allow this amazing miracle of the internet to even happen. But if I don’t understand “why?” what good is such an answer?

Using this example, you can’t dive into the “why?” without diving into the intentions of the original developers (Arpanet), today’s web content providers and surfers of the Internet. The “why” question begs the question of purpose and meaning. Purpose and meaning inevitably point to someone’s volition, i.e. , their will.

When I ask atheists and agnostics the why questions regarding morality, I often catch them trying to give answers like, “well it is obvious” or “just because” or even “if you have to ask, you are a moron!”  This is no answer at all. Answering “just because” to the questions of “Why is killing evil?” or “How can good be objectively defined?” is the equivalent of saying there is no cause for such beliefs. Something that is causeless would have to be eternal since it has no beginning. That is a divine quality. What has no cause except for God?

And this is something many people don’t understand when they ask, “Who created God?” Something HAS to be causeless.  If an atheist rejects belief in God, they have to believe in a causeless process, a set of natural laws. They are replacing one problem with another.

Many times, I catch people unwilling to ask the why questions. I often find people are NOT willing to let their questions go deep enough. Sometimes it’s the old excuse of “since we can’t no everything, let’s bury our heads in the sand”. This mindset lacks discernment. Unfortunately, I see this often with people of faith.

But most often, I see people who are afraid to ask the why questions because they lead to a “who”. Horton gets the idea of having the people of Who-ville make the loudest noise possible so that the other animals would hear and believe. It took everyone in the community of Who-ville to get this word out.

If believers want to get the word out about the reality of God’s love, we need to be a living question, causing others to think the thoughts that lead from the what, to the why and from the why to the who.

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

Incoherence Kills Relationships

Ravi Zacharias (www.rzim.org) was once asked during a Q&A session where he had gotten the idea that truth is coherent. He answered by asking, “do you want a coherent or incoherent answer?”

Coherence is logical consistency by another name. I am afraid that I have learned that when a person lacks reason, they kill off the ability to communicate. As a result, one cannot build relationships with such a person beyond shallow platitudes.

Please understand that I am not defining a reasonable person to be someone who simply agrees with me.

I am also not under the naïve impression that logic is a truth detector. Logic does the best job of being a lie detector. I understand that one can be logical and be wrong. Euclidean vs non-euclidean geometry yields this truth. Both types of systems are logically consistent but yield contradicting results. If you’re not up to speed on the subject, this is Google material.

The above is so abstract, so let me illustrate with an example. For the sake of brevity, this example is oversimplified and hyperbolic, however it is still a legitimate illustration. Imagine someone states that they believe that the earth is flat. You show them a satellite imagery of the round earth and make arguments about the rotation of the earth affecting the day/night cycle. You point back to Magellan who was the first explorer to travel completely around the earth. The dissenter, instead of addressing each of those points, simply dismisses them as propaganda arguments, perhaps all a part of a grand conspiracy.

What more can you say or do when someone ignores evidence and reason but smile and nod or perhaps shake your head and walk away? At this point, the relationship has suffered. The relationship lacks the openness necessary to cultivate change and growth.

The sun has a “relationship” with plant life. Those plants open themselves up and reach towards the sun for nourishment and growth. You show me a plant that doesn’t do this and I’ll show you one that is dying. Reach for the light and you’ll find relationships. It may stretch you, but the stretching is the better alternative to death.

The Probable Impossible

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."- Christopher Hitchens.

Although Mr. Hitchens and I both come from polar opposite perspectives, we can both agree on the above statement. Many people hold to faith without reason. But I would contend that you can't have faith without reason, nor reason without faith.

So why do I believe in Christianity? There are many reasons, but here is one simple argument.

I believe in Christianity because I believe in the collective accounts of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the Gospels). The skeptic has no better alternative. It is one thing to naively believe in one account. This is what Muslims do with the Koran. But when you have multiple people saying the same thing, you either have the truth or a conspiracy. One thing that is improbable is a collective delusion.

For the skeptic to say that these books are a conspiracy, belies a reasonable motive. What did these writers have to gain by making up claims that there was a man (Jesus), who was the Messiah? What wares were they hocking?

The skeptic sometimes claims that these books were really written by the church when it came into power in the 4th century. However, we know for a fact that these books were written in the 1st century. The oldest complete manuscript of a Gospel text dates back to the 2nd century.

And what were the motives of such a conspiracy? Were the writers trying to gain money or power? If so, they failed on all accounts. The Gospel writers didn't go on a "book tour" nor did they gain political ascendency. In fact, they risked their lives by their claims.

Many believers gave their lives because they were convinced that Jesus Christ died and rose again and was the Messiah. Why is this any different from religious extremists today who do the same thing? The difference is that these early believers had the evidence to affirm or reject such claims. Many of these martyrs actually saw Jesus, living and walking the same ground He did.

"Always prefer the probable impossible to the improbable possible." - Aristotle

Sure, it stretches the imagination to believe in the claims of Christianity. But the alternatives take MORE faith to believe. In fact, whenever I encounter a skeptic who rejects the claims of the Gospels, I always challenge them to give a better explanation as to why they exist in the first place. I have yet to find a skeptic who can give a better alternative making the improbable more probable in the face of the impossible.

Illusions of Omnipotence in the Face of Hypocrisy

I've never understood the mindset that says, "I reject Christianity because of hypocrites." To me, that is like saying any of the following:

I don't believe in the concepts of laws because of law breakers.

I don't believe in Government authority because of corrupt politicians.

I don't believe in food because of gluttony and food poisoning.

I don't believe in money because of counterfeiting.

What does the existence of a hypocrite Christian have to do with the validity of Christianity's claims? What has happened to the idea of discernment? What has happened to the idea of examining a belief for its claim?

I see this problem in the political arena as well. Someone will make an argument that they are against a particular political idea because of the behavior of individuals who advocate such an idea.

For instance, the Tea Party says that they believe in smaller Government, yet someone will say that they reject this because there might be racists in their midst. I haven't seen the "smoking gun" evidence of this argument but even if it exists, the existence of such racists has nothing to do with one's belief in smaller or bigger Government for that matter.

Why do we confuse personality with ideas?

Is it not because we have bought into "perception is reality" and made ourselves to be gods as a result? The logic flows this way. If perception is reality, then I no longer need to examine truth in an objective world. Instead, whatever I believe is true, despite whether or not it corresponds with reality. So if my perception is that the world is flat, that is what people call "my truth". In such a world, I don't need to test my belief. It logically follows that I will "choose my own truth".

BTW, such a person would make a lousy scientist. The scientific method requires that we test all beliefs before holding them. Science is only acting upon truths that transcend its borders.

Perception is the only reality the non-discerning can ever know.

Isn't the ability to make truth into what we wish limited to someone who would have to have omnipotence? If so, then why do we act like WE are omnipotent in the face of pending death? In the end, we all die. Isn't this truth the ultimate reason to reject illusions of omnipotence?

Do you still believe that perception is reality? Then try living with a belief that you will NEVER die. But I warn you. In the end, life will slap your perception in the face. I attempt to warn you more gently.

On A Stranded Island Looking For Reason

It is impossible for a man to marry his widow's sister.

Imagine you have made this statement and are confronted with a dissenter. Now imagine your dissenter accuses you of being a bigot, cramming your "family values" down other people's throats instead of actually examining the substance of the quote.

I can't tell you how many times I've been in such arguments. Many times, I find that we bring our own stereotypes and prejudices to the table and react to style instead of examining substance. Why do people fail to examine substance? I see this as the death of reason.

I'm sadly coming to the conclusion that many people do not live by reason. As you can see by this blog, I'm a "why" person. I ask both of others and first of myself, "why do you believe in x?" I believe it takes boldness to ask such questions because the answer could take us to places beyond our comfort zones.

I've been in many, many debates with people and found that when I probed the "why" questions, it didn't take too long before I learned that the dissenter did not have a reason to hold to their position. In some cases, where I might have been successful at revealing this, I would have expected the dissenter to be open-minded enough to consider re-examining their beliefs. And thankfully sometimes this is the case. But more often then not, I have found that the dissenter will persist DESPITE a lack of reasoning for their position and will often accuse me of being defensive because I'm always coming up with reasons for my positions.

Before I proceed further, let me say that I am far from perfect and am wrong more times than I know or would even care to admit. Many times, I'm on the wrong end of the argument. But because I try to follow the truth no matter where it takes me, I have seen growth in my worldview as a result.

I also need to say that I do NOT believe that reason is the end-all, be-all of truth. I am convinced that we need reason coupled with sound presuppositions. At the core, all of our presuppositions are grounded in faith. And because faith is ultimately volitional, meaning that we believe what we want to believe, our hearts must be pure. A pure heart means that we must love the truth more than our pet beliefs or winning an argument. We must even love the truth over our comfort zones.

We don't see the world as it is. We see the world as we are. Anias Nin

With the above said, I am beginning to conclude that the death of reason is the death of communication ifself. When I am in a discussion with a dissenter and discover that they are not deterred if I am successful at exposing their lack of reason and when I see that they lack a curiosity to explore the reasons for my position, the only thing I have left to do is to smile and nod at them. This cuts off the communication. This is why I am suggesting that the death of reason is the death of communication. The death of dialogue is the death of community.

When we lack reason, we vanquish ourselves to islands, stranded from the coasts of truth.

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?