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?!

Not blasphemy or great truth! “Dats for Shaw?!”

The gospel according to George Bernard Shaw:

“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”

I don’t know how to respond to this.

If I agree with it, then I must question how great it is. If I disagree with it, then I must ascribe some worth to it, though without any warrant. If I don’t respond to it, then some may assume that it has merit.

It can be true.
I agree. As Truth is revealed where it conflicts with the prevailing ideas of a culture, then it may considered blasphemous even though it is true. If it is true, then it is true wherever and whenever it is revealed. But how does one go about supporting a declaration that involves ALL the great truths?

It can be false.
I disagree. As blasphemy is declared on something that conflicts with the Truth that has already discovered to be true, then it is what it is. If it is false, then it is false wherever and whenever it is presented. Perhaps ALL great truths begin as blasphemies, but not all blasphemies become great truths.

It can be misleading.
I must respond. To say that this is true of ALL great truths might be a great stretching of all truth. How could anyone even come to know this truth or blasphemy? If it is one of those great truths that Mr. Shaw mentioned, then how long was it considered a blasphemy before people started warming up to the idea? If it is was accepted as soon as Mr. Shaw verbalized it, then must we question its greatness immediately? It misleads on account of it being so specific in its generalization and vague in its precision.

How does one critique such a statement?

It can’t be done.

You either accept it having already assumed it to be true, or you reject it having realized such a categorical statement can not be sustained by anything other than anecdotal evidence.

It can be truth.

It can be blasphemy.

It can be precisely vague, and that is for Shaw!

Would Morpheus and Optimus Prime agree with Mr. Freud?

The gospel according to Sigmund Freud:

“We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be.”

Why would we ALL have such desires or wishes?

There seems to be at least two reasons.

Either our wishing brings about this design, or our design brings about these wishes.

The former assumes certain theories about the nature of things and concludes that the wishful thinking is what we tell ourselves in order to make things seem very nice. The latter assumes certain theologies about the nature of things and concludes that the wishful thinking was hardwired into us and that tells us something of ourselves. 

Both reasons are legitimate explanations of the way things are.

Both.

That is, both explain reality by assuming other things to be true. 

If one believes that there is no God, then God is something we have designed to meet the needs of our wishful thinking.

If one believes that there is a God, then wishful thinking is something we have been designed with to reveal our need of God.

These assumptions or presuppositions will interpret the other reasons as unreasonable in as much as they consider their own reasons as reasonable enough to convince all others.

Both reasons might be consistent with their own assumptions.

But can both be true of reality?

If you think so, 
then I wish you the best bliss ever conceived of by the ignorant masses on both sides of this matter.

If you think not,
then I wish you would think deeply about whether the answers from either side really answer the questions that reside within you.

Perhaps, there is more to reality than meets the eye and we are in need of being transformed

Perhaps, there is more to life than the matrix and we are in need of being enlightened.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps both?!

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.