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?!

Inventing Multiple-choice Lite Brites?!

The gospel according to Christopher Hitchens:

“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”

That’s Brilliant.
That’s “Brite.”

This is a term coined by some within the ranks of militant atheism. It seems to me that most thoughtful atheists either have to grin and bear the likes of Mr. Hitchens, roll their eyes, checkout their minds, and invite the Unwanted Uncle to the picnic of thoughtful interaction on this subject.

Who invited him? He is just here because he is part of the family. Most of what this crotchety, old man has to say can be portrayed as the repainting of relatively good people who are involved in some religious aspirations as the blight and plague of human civilization. Give him a few more drinks and the show will begin as he paints the other side with caricatures and vitriolic language.

Those who listen are somewhat amused.

But mostly embarrassed.

And I get this vague impression from reading his words in his books or others that the working pictures of his opponents are shining out of one of those children toys that has a bunch of colored pegs in which you press into a grid-work of holes in a box that contains a light of some sort. It makes a picture. Sort of.

The picture radiates in the light. You can almost make out a sort of argument in the portrait and its really bright and beautiful.

That’s “Brite.”
That’s “Lite Brite.”

You can almost make out some sort of argument in the midst of the ranting and raving of an uncle that has lost his mind, his marbles, but unfortunately not his speech. You can almost see the picture and its real pretty if you turn off the lights.

“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”

It sounds good. It quite pretty. But if this reasoning were applied to a multiple-choice test would the results demonstrate the robust nature of this statement?

A: Animism.
B: Buddhism.
C: Christianity.
D: Do include all the other major and minor Belief Systems.

Since it is obviously inconceivable that all answers can be right, the the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.

It seems to me that one ought to consider the merits of each answer to make an educated guess with respect to belief systems. To consider that all the answers can not be right—being quite obvious—and conclude that all answers must be wrong—being quite dubious—seems to be a nice way of trying to argue to a conclusion that one already believes to be true.

E: None of the above.

Perhaps that makes great sense to binge-drinkers in universities everywhere. But it stands to reason that if they are using such a rationale it is being reflected in their grand achievements of entering the workforce earlier than planned.

Perhaps, this is the correct answer to the multiple-choice question, but if the question was asked in a Logic 101 and required an essay to give reason for the answer chosen, then something tells me the results would be just as grand.

And there might be a chance that you could get a job on the ground floor of a manufacturing plant producing Multiple-choice Lite Brites.

Plastic and electronic gods have been added to the pantheon.

The gospel according to Arthur C. Clarke:

“Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God–but to create Him.”

Such an intriguing thought.

Clearly this is what most people do. 

They carve their idol out of wood, stone, plastic surgery, or electronic circuitry and they “bow down.” This is the story of humanity. It is nothing new under this sun and sky setting that we find ourselves in.

Perhaps this is the biggest part of the problem that people have with religion. There are all these people who create their version of their god and then worship him in their way and step all over everyone else’s version of god and worship. This is a legitimate issue to be concerned with. One that would find fuller expression in a different post that might deal with if God exists then how would he reveal himself if he would reveal himself at all. The diversity of religious expression in every culture in the world begs a few questions that can not be off-handedly dismissed as so often done.

Why is there this inherent need in humanity to worship?

Why is there this inherent need to create something in order to worship?

Answering these questions ought to involve more than tossing God out with the proverbial baby and bath water. These are significant questions that remained unanswered in any significant way by those who contend them to be insignificant. The rise of secularism in some western cultures has not been matched by the westernization of the rest of the world. Assumptions of God having died have to deal with the obvious fact that his coffin is empty. This is an argument from silence and of emptiness. Some would say that both sides argue in this way. Perhaps. But that reminds me of two questions that have yet to be answered. Too many believe otherwise. To deny this characteristic of humanity is to close one’s eyes to the reality that is all around us.

One obvious answer to the questions of needing to worship and creating things to worship is that we were created to worship.

Humans are created to worship.

This is one answer to this inherent desire within mankind to follow after something greater than self. There may be other answers to such a characteristic, but some have a way of seeming more contrived than I am comfortable with. 

Perhaps you have an answer other than the one I have offered.