Can I Just Sound a Wee-bit Smarteur?!

The gospel according to John Stuart Mill:

“It is historically true that a large proportion of infidels in all ages have been persons of distinguished integrity and honour.”

How does a person determine integrity and honour? One does not have to be religious to be “good,” neither does one have to be irreligious to be “evil,” but how these terms are defined becomes the real issue.

Therein lies the rub: definitions, interpretations, and spelling.

There is tension. There is divisiveness. There is difference of opinion in how one unpacks the words: integrity, honour, infidel, good, evil, and just about any word that I have just created with the press of my fingers in an effort to communicate my thoughts. This is the reality of what we have to deal with.

Words carry weight and meaning to individuals as they are shaped by culture, upbringing, education, experiences, presuppositions, and a whole host of diverse elements. This reality shapes our definitions, interpretations and spellings.

Integrity.
Arguably, if a person describes integrity as being true to one’s self, then the justification of cultural vices would fall into the category of “integrity.” He is merely a reflection of lower geographic regions of America and so his racism is just him being true to himself. This is a man of integrity. She can do nothing but succumb to the bottle for both her parents were given to excessive drink and so her alcoholism is just her being true to herself. This is a woman of integrity.

However, if integrity is defined by something other than the individual which elevates certain qualities above others and labels them virtuous, then the striving after and living within the constriants of such things would be make such an individual a person of integrity.

Honour.
It same kind of way as honour is unpacked it expresses the same kinds of peculiarities with at least one exception. As defined and interpreted by the individual it could mean a great deal of divergent notions, but as defined by the larger collective of society and civilization it takes on a shape that resists the relativism of the individual.

The one exception that I can think of has little to do with its definition or interpretation and has everything to do with its spelling. The American-side of me notices the red line that the computer has scribbled under the typed word and I come to the realization that if I just spell the word in the British matter, then I might be interpreted by some reader as being smarter.

This is really what Mr. Stuarts statement is all about.

It sounds smarter to disregard the complexity of differing civilizations and movements within these cultures and speak generally of all of it in a witty manner and say nothing in particular.

Will a smug look on my face make me appear smarter?

What about smarteur?!

Theological Chickens Before Metaphysical Eggs?!

The gospel according to Petronius:

“Fear was the god’s begetter in this world.”

This is an interesting thought. In many respects and with many examples, this could be proven to be true for many religious systems of thought.

But in the same way, one could argue that fear of justice has been the god’s executioner in this world. In effect, we live in an age where it is claimed that “God is dead” and we dance on his coffin.

But if we were to look inside, what would you imagine that we might find?

Emptiness.

The emptiness of empirical arguments from silence.

It is argued that God doesn’t exist, that fears of all kinds brought about the necessity of the God idea. This idea or concept of God was born and then evolved into the current state of religious pluralism.

This is a reasonable assertion of how religions MIGHT have come about IF the presupposition of God’s nonexistence is true. If the belief that God is dead or never existed is true, then it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of religious belief in God has been constructed. This is how it is argued.

And by argue, I mean a presentation of cause and effect that is largely based on presuppositional bias.

The question of whether the chicken came before the egg is taken to new heights of expression. Which is the legitimate cause to the observable effect?

This would be true of both statements.

Fear was the god’s begetter
Fear of justice was the god’s executioner.

Both statements are reasonable, if and only if the presupposition is already assumed to be true.

The existence of fear brought about the need for God?!
If one already assumes that God does not exist, then quite naturally [and logically], his explanation of God consists of some evolutionary fabrication of man in order to deal with excessive fear of the unknown, of death, and of other significant matters.

These questions don’t matter.

The existence of God brings about the need to fear?!
If one already assumes that God does exist, then quite naturally [and logically], his explanation of fear stands in relationship to a being that transcends our ability to understand but has revealed himself in limited ways so that some things might be known of the unknown, of death, and of other significant matters.

Some questions have answers.

Obviously, either statement can only convince those already convinced of certain ground beliefs.

This begs the question, “What is at the ground of your belief?”

The metaphysical egg?
The theological chicken?

The answer to this question will determine whether you will be convinced or remain unconvinced.