Bio
Latest
This Year
Last Year
Older
Music
Links
Profile
Notes
E-Mail
Diaryland
A letter to Coley 2003-12-11 @ 2:04 p.m.
I wrote a letter today as part of a correspondance I've been having with Coley about issues of truth. "I don't understand how someone could believe in something and yet not think there's an absolute truth." she wrote, after basically claiming that if knowledge is fallible, it is useless. She went on to allude to her experiences of Jesus, but she still hasn't told me the specifics about her experiences that I want to hear, and perhaps to ask questions about. Here is what I wrote:
.
.
.
Dear Coley,
I read what you wrote and considered it carefully. It is true that I do not believe in absolute truths, even though the concept of them fascinates me. I can only think of two things off hand that I believe in that approach absolute truths. The first is Change - it seems to be the only thing that is constant, the possible exception being God. The second is Love, which is the Way that can only bring about positive results in my understanding. I have yet to see love fail, and I see it as the real salvation of our world. Perhaps there are situations in which love fails and there are greater principles that transcend it, but I would have to have the omniscience of God to be able to see that. So in my understanding, Change and Love are the closest to absolute truths I have found, but I will not be arrogant enough to claim they are absolute truths, because I just can't know for sure. In my opinion, it is arrogant and foolish for any human to claim to know absolute truths because humans are imperfect and are not omniscient. They cannot see things from every angle, and so they have no right to make absolute truth claims. Rather funny if you think about it - it is like someone looking down a dark tunnel and claiming to know how the whole world looks. You could also think of it in terms of the mathematical principle of infinity. We don't have to know what infinity is in order to strive to approach it, and to use the knowledge we acquire in the meantime to create useful axioms. It'd be silly to tell mathematicians that they shouldn't utilize infinity in their calculations just because they don't know what it is - in fact, its use is essential to calculus, which modern engineering depends on.
What I find more important here is why you seem to think that relative truths are necessarily evil and false things. Relative truths can carry great wisdom, and through them great accomplishments of good can be achieved. The key to understanding them is context and utility. For example, where would science and technology be today if scientists refused to search and study because their instruments were imperfect? We would enjoy none of the blessings that science has brought us. However, we do get to enjoy these things, and make "progress", because scientists make the most out of their faculties and instruments through approximation. They do the best they can with what they have, while in the meantime recognizing their shortcomings and looking for ways to improve their instruments, models, theories, etc. When new evidence demands a new and bigger way of understanding things, ideally the old ways will step aside in favor of a larger and more encompassing perspective. There's always people who will dig their heels in and refuse to give up their old and now primitive way of seeing things. Those people can be theologians, philosophers, and scientists - arrogant pride can be found in all kinds of people.
Relative truths become wrong and dangerous when their adherents forget that they is relative - when they change a relative truth into an absolute truth. When this happens, they close themselves off to the advancement of truth, because when a larger and broader perspective comes along with new evidence and new ways of seeing, they will fight it instead of embracing it. Reason and questioning, essential human drives that lead us towards greater truth and happiness, come to a halt. Claims of infallibility often arise, and soon people begin to care more about their beliefs being right than actually doing the right thing. When ego becomes more important than truth, then we have much to be afraid of. As history teaches us, the violent suppresion of truth and much suffering is sure to follow.
So the fact that our books, our knowledge, our beliefs are fallible does not make them useless or bad - UNLESS we regard them as infallible and refuse to yield when new evidence and a bigger perspective come along. In fact, its really quite stupid of us to look back at the people of ages past and say "How could they be so stupid? The truth was right in front of their eyes and they didn't even notice it? How primitve". Later generations are likely to make the same hasty judgments about us. As long as we do our best with what we have, recognize our shortcomings and strive towards the Highest, then we are living well. That is why Paul teaches that we are justified by faith, not works. Our works are fallible and our ways of thinking are limited. Nonetheless, as James teaches, this does not mean that works have no importance. In fact, we are obligated to act in accordance with our highest understanding of things - Christians are obligated to live their lives and help others in accordance with the revelation of Love, for example.
You seem to think there is only one way to understand the bible, and that is just not true. The bible is an amazing collection of books in so many ways, and its a shame not to look at it through many different lenses, because you miss out on so much of its richness. You don't have to believe in the bible literally in order to appreciate it, to learn from it and to be inspired by it. The New Testament has many occasions where Old Testament verses are interpreted in an allegorical context. I concur with the church father Origen on this:
"What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars, and the first day without a heaven? What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise in Eden, like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil? I believe that every man must hold these things for images, under which the hidden sense lies concealed."
So what I am saying is, just because scripture isn't literally true doesn't mean it has nothing to offer us. I believe it has a lot to offer people, and there are many great truths that approach universality that flow as undercurrents through the literal texts. What you have to do is approach scripture with curiosity and critical thinking, and to look outside of it to confirm things. Ask yourself: Who is the author here? Where is he coming from? (and its always a he you might notice). What's his background? What's his authority? Is he an eye-witness, or someone writing hundreds of years after the fact? What message is he trying to convey? What kind of philosophies does he hold? These are just some of the many questions you can ask. I'm sorry if this goes against traditional Protestant thought, but scripture was never meant to be the sole authority. Learn about the culture of ancient Israel. Learn about the history of the church. Examine the ways that different people have interpreted the bible differently, and what their backgrounds and motives have been. You'll find that the bible and its "correct" interpretation have been shaped and reshaped over thousands of years.
You have alluded to your experiences, and I am excited to see this. Experiences take primacy in spirituality, we come closest to God through them. Traditions, rituals, theology, scriptures and practices are all valuable as tools, but ultimately our experience of the Divine must be direct to be truly authentic. I want to hear more about your experiences Coley. I've heard the proselytization script hundreds of times, I've read and studied the bible from cover to cover, and I know the catechisms that the churches teach. What I don't know is where you are coming from, what you experienced, how you interpreted those experiences and how your life has changed as a result. I would really like to hear that - that's something I can't find anywhere else. That is the only thing that has YOU in it, and isn't just an abstract philosophy or an old book. You say you have met Jesus - I'm guessing you didn't bump into him in the street one day, have a conversation in English and get his autograph while you were at it. So since you obviosuly don't mean that, what do you mean when you say that you met him? Though I understand the symbolic language of Christianity (misappropriated though it is in my opinion), I would prefer it if you would speak directly and clearly about your experiences and minimize the use of "born again" vocabulary. What defines the "real" Jesus versus false Jesus? When you say you put your lives in the hands of the bible, or your pastor, or Jesus, what are you really saying? And more importantly, why do you need an authority outside of yourself? And what gives you the right to say you know THE truth, rather than just believe a truth?
If you made it this far, I thank and congratulate you. I want to hear your story and ask you questions about it. And I'd like to share my story too, if you'd be interested. I know all this isn't easy for you, but in my experience, when something makes you uncomfortable, its a red flag that you need to examine it and learn more about it. I think you have a good heart, and its self-evident you have a good amount of patience, as you read this whole thing - hehehe. I look forward to hearing back from you
Dave Stolowitz
"Details in the Fabric" - May 31, 2009
Not So Quick Questions - April 6, 2009
The Morning Stars - Lords of the 15 - April 9, 2009
Sincerity and Faith in Magic - April 10, 2009
Not So Quick Questions (2) - April 14, 2009
|
CURRENT MOON moon phase |
