If anything matters, everything matters

Meaning, meaning, meaning.

We've all done it (here in Minnesota at least). It starts with a fresh snow fall and an empty parking lot. You throw the car into reverse, turn the wheel as far as it will go and hit the gas. Round and round you spin. You may have noticed that even though you have the steering wheel pegged, you never end up repeating the exact same circle twice. There's always a bit of drift—just enough to keep things interesting...

Okay, maybe it's not that interesting. But anyone who's been around here for any length of time knows where I'm going with this. Matt and I have been going round on the meaning of life since the very first (with the help of many others along the way). Indeed, we may well sound like broken records at times. Still there is this "drift," subtle shifts in the direction of the conversation and an unshakable feeling that there is more to be said—that it's still a conversation worth having. Or maybe that's just me. I don't know.

Starting back in July there was a rash of "meaning of life talk" that broke out. First here. Then here. From these two conversations two theories of meaning were purposed (well, more than that actually, but these were the only two that stayed in the discussion):

Alex's Meaning Thesis {AMT} =
A thing or state of affairs is meaningful only if it holds a conceptually significant place in relation to the telos of the whole.

Existentialist Meaning Thesis {EMT} =
A thing or state of affairs is meaningful if it strikes an observer as significant or "weighty" when filtered through one’s life experience.

EMT was then later revised by Matt and became something slightly different. I would like to call the Personal Meaning Thesis:

Personal Meaning Thesis {PMT} =
Something I think is meaningful will have (a) influenced the way I see myself and the world I inhabit, and/or (b)will have been something I've considered valuable (either at the time, or later on).

To begin exploring this I would wish to make two preliminary remarks. First, we should note that there is a epistemological/metaphysical schism running between AMT and EMT/PMT. I will elaborate on this shortly. Secondly, PMT (and from here on I will speak primarily of PMT) is fully able to exist comfortably within AMT. Following from this second observation flows my primary challenge: Can PMT obtain if AMT is rejected? In other words, is talk of personal meaning coherent if we deny any telos or "ultimate purpose" to the whole (i.e. all reality)?^[1] It seems to me any serious atheist must face this question. The very credibility of all vigorous denials of nihilism are at stake.

Now, back to this talk of epistemological/metaphysical schisms. This is an important point as it uncovers the fact that our comparison is not a kind for kind, but rather we are dealing with two levels of explanation. AMT is the more ambitious of the two theories as it deals primarily with questions of metaphysical truth (e.g. is love ultimately meaningful? Is striving for justice ultimately significant?). PMT, on the other hand, is a much more modest theory as it works within a more epistemically limited domain. ^[2] PMT would say, "look, we can't know the nature of ultimate reality in the way AMT seems to desire, thus if we work from what we can know (e.g. I feel a sense of solidarity with those who suffer, etc...) then we can go on to construct a theory of meaning from these basic facts.

This is true so far as it goes and I do not wish to minimize it's legitimacy in any way. The question is, under what circumstances does this legitimacy obtain? PMT cannot answer this question. It simply does not go far enough as a theory of meaning. Allow me to here try and put my finger on the fatal flaw of all PMT type formulations. PMT ultimately ends with an emotional brute fact. The question is then not "why desire a desire," (as I was thought to be suggesting here) but "what's next in questioning this desire?" Is it really an absurd question to ask, what is desire? Is desire itself meaningful?

Here, if held at the exclusion of AMT, PMT is dashed on the rocks of its own inquiry. It's not that this desire in PMT is unable to be questioned in the same way the validity rationality is (discussed here). The validity of desires can be questioned without absurdity, the problem here is that PMT is simply too small to answer the question and thus is a myopic theory of meaning. PMT dwells long and hard on the four-color "welcome to the Rocky Mountains" brochure while refusing to step off the tour bus to witness the sun cresting over glacier crowned peaks.

In the final analysis if we accept AMT and it is true that there is a purposeful telos to the whole of reality (much as the Christian story suggests), then you get PMT as well. Yet if we deny the legitimacy of AMT by arguing that "the whole" does not have a telos, then we have yet to see how this ruptured dam of meaninglessness can be kept from surging back down the canyon of history destroying every supposed village of meaning along it's path. PMT, like everything else, is awash in the flotsam of cosmic waste.

I realize that at one point, Matt, you said that you are not necessarily denying AMT. I'm not altogether sure what you meant by that. Though I do know you had your money on PMT, at least last we talked. I'm not sure whether or not I have succeeded or not, but I have tried here to demonstrate that PMT is dependent upon AMT and the additional premise that "the whole" does indeed have a telos.

If what I have said so far is true, then one of two things can be said from our intuitions of "meaningfulness." 1. Our intuitions regarding meaning are appropriate inklings of the truth that comes both before and behind all history, or 2. these intuitions are simply the Universe making noise for no other reason than the fact that it does. Thus, to speak of "meaning" under 2. seems to entail such a heavily qualified disclaimer that we may as well speak clearly into the mic: All is meaningless.

Thoughts? Pushbacks?

^[1]
The Factory Thought Experiment
Consider a factory. It sits somewhere out in northern Saskatchewan. The factory is completely automated and no one knows where it came from or who owns it. As a matter of fact it produces absolutely no product, service or output of any kind. It is completely and totally without purpose. It even runs as if by magic, needing no energy source to sustain itself.

Now on a random vacation to the area you are passing by this very odd factory and you notice a sign offering free tours [let us here ignore the suggestion that the purpose of the factory is to provide a location for tours]. Not having anything else planned, you decide to have a look. Once inside, you notice the factory is filled with all manner of frantic, automated activity.

Happening across a particularly complicated little piece of machinery you note the many intricate tasks it seems be be performing. Getting the attention of the tour guide you ask, "What is this little gizmo up to?" (how is it contributing to the telos of the system?)

The tour guide then begins to expound on how it contributes to the larger system of which it is a part. Having provided a satisfactory answer regarding how our little device participates in this system, you ask the obvious question, "okay, but what does that system do?" And so on…

Thus, from inquiring about the one isolated gizmo, one's questions becomes ever more expansive, asking of ever larger systems within the factory. Likewise, each answer must relate the previous system to the next larger system in which it is nested, until finally there is no "next step up" except that of the entire factory itself. To ask this final question exposes the absurdity of the exercise, for, as we have stipulated, the factory itself has no telos—it "just is."

From here we must ask, does this dead end not render questionable any purpose within the previously mentioned systems and relationships? That is to say, did our little gizmo ever relate to the telos of the system of which it was a part? It does not appear that it did, for the only way this purposive relationship could be justified was by appealing to the telos of the system yet above it, and so on…. We have a regress on our hands that must stop with the telos of the factory, which, by definition, has none. Thus, if all those relationships are evacuated of any purpose, does that not also annihilate any significant meaning? It seems to me it does. And if this is true for our little gizmo, how much more so for our own lives?

^[2]
At least when taken at its best. At its worst this position is held to avoid the uncomfortable implications of AMT in relation to certain metaphysical convictions. Not pointing fingers. I'm just sayin'.

P.S. This post title is shamelessly ripped off from William P. Young's The Shack

What gives?

It's been a while ay? As life rolls on I've found myself with increasingly little time for continuing ...I was going to say blogging, but, as it turns out, blogging is but one small piece of all that I have little time to keep up. School has been fantastic. I've been throwing myself into my studies and have gotten into the habit of doing upwards of four times the work actually required of me. Last quarter I wrote my term paper on theology and evolution. This quarter it was on hell conceived as universalism, eternal conscious torment and annihilationism. It's been a lot of fun having the time actually do some research.

I also took on a half-time job this spring. I'm now the "youth guy" at our church. It's been tremendously challenging, exciting and scary... but good. That combined with school and the soon to be kid #2 leaves me in a place where I really need to bracket my life in such a way that forces me to give up some things I really love: like talking to you all. Now I'm not saying I'm gone for good. It's more like "few and far between." I guess one benefit of this medium is that it's not like anyone's going anywhere (unless someone's thinking of swearing off the internet). So ya. I guess I just felt that I owed you all some explanation, especially Matt since he continues to keep the home fires burning... even if no one's home half the time. Sorry bud.

The crushing weight of silence

Note: I sent this out yesterday via Facebook to a few of the regulars on this blog. Matt suggested I post it (perhaps apple will offer me millions to use it?). Seeing as I have little time to post anything else, perhaps there's nothing wrong with a little personal dramma!

---------------------

For those of you all who may be used to seeing me on IM, MSN, FB, etc... you may have noticed a peculiar lack of my presence these last few weeks. I thought I'd offer a bit of an explanation. I do this not because I worry that you've missed me (though doubtless, you have), but because this is the sort of story that only finds its meaning in the telling.

That said, my computer is broke. But wait, there's more...

So I show up to my second day on campus two weeks ago. I calmly pull out my super sweet (almost brand spanking new) macbook pro. As I pop open the screen it becomes apparent that all is not well. There is a massive crack all the way across the screen! I figured it must have hit something while in by backpack. After a brief period of shock I decide to suck it up and order a new $300 screen.

Now, I'm staying with my brother-in-law while I'm down at classes so I give him a call to obtain his address so that I can get the screen overnighted to his place. He picks up and I explain the situation to him.... There's an slightly uncomfortable moment of silence on the other end of the phone... "So I take it you didn't get my email then, huh?", he says. Not waiting for me to answer he continues, "I think I may have drove over your computer this morning."

"What?"

"Ya, I'm pretty sure I did."

"That's impossible! The computer would be mangled had you done that!"

"I dunno, but I think I did."

At this point you may be wondering how the devil my computer found itself in such a place as to make possible the "getting driven over" thing. Briefly: a friend was picking me up for class. He parks on one side of the drive way. I needed to get something in the house. I leave my backpack IN THE YARD next to the drive way; Brother-in-law decides to leave from work; swings wide to avoid friend's car; backs over my back pack containing my lap-top... digital camera... head phones... and ipod. (thankfully, the ipod came out unscathed)

Okay that still leaves me in the position of wondering how it could be that only the screen was cracked after being driven over by a vehicle. As I was later expressing my amazement over this fact the nice boy sitting behind me decided to bring it to my attention that I may be drawing my conclusions a bit prematurely. According to him, my entire lap-top was sort of taking on the shape of a ski jump. After taking a closer look, "according to him" turned out to be "according to reality" as well. Crazy thing is though, the machine still worked fine! For awhile I could still take notes on a three inch section of the monitor that wasn't cracked! (though that didn't last long)

All that is to say that, insurance companies being what they are, my computer is in the process of being "fixed" (even though a new one would have cost only a few hundred dollars more than the "fixing"). Should have it back late this week.

Now... shower me with pity! (or at least have a good laugh at my expense)

A bit late, but still...

Wee li'll Zoë Ophelia

For any who don't know already, our very own Rev. Dr. Incitatus is a daddy!

Congrats man!

Grenz on Death

As you may have guessed I've been preoccupied with school, work and family life these days. Sadly, this leaves little room for the blogging. Since I can't seem to find a spare moment to pick up the several blogging projects I've left hanging, I thought I'd perhaps post random tidbits from some of the reading I'm doing now days. That way I don't have to think too hard. ;-)

P.S. for any of you Facebook friends of mine I've recently posted some pics and videos from my latest mountain adventure. Good stuff.

Our ability to reflect on our own death brings to light the deeper dimension of this phenomenon. Not only is death the cessation of biological function, it marks the end of personal life. In this way, death calls personal existence into question. As the termination of a person's life, death speaks as it were the final word. Death, so it seems, undermines all our attempts to find meaning for our own lives. In the end, we all die. Whatever significance we may have constructed for life is abruptly breached. As the psalmist declared, "What man can life and not see death, or save himself from the power of the grave?" (Ps. 89:48).

The dark shadow that death casts across personal life suggests that life is a meaningless absurdity. This was the conclusion of the Preacher: "all share a common destiny — the righteous and the wicked, the good an the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not" (Eccles. 9:2). They all "join the dead" (v. 3).

In death, therefore, we face an enigma more problematic than the cessation of the function of a biological organism. We are confronted with a crisis of meaning produced by our inevitable death. As Ernest Becker poignantly observed, "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."

Does our Christian faith commitment shed light on the phenomenon of death: Does death carry and genuine significance, or is it indeed the ultimate absurdity?

Stanley Grenz - Theology For the Community of God

As you may remember... I love a good storm.

A recent nighttime storm provided the opportunity to try my hand at photographing some lightning. Out of the thirty some odd shots I took this is the only one that turned out. As randomly composed as it is, honestly, I'm pretty happy with it.

Child of Dust — Thrice

Dear prodigal, you are my son and I
Supplied you not your spirit, but your shape.
All Eden's wealth arrayed before your eyes;
I fathomed not you wanted to escape.

And though I only ever gave you love,
like every child you’ve chosen to rebel;
uprooted flowers and filled the holes with blood;
ask not for whom they toll the solemn bells.

A child of dust to mother now return;
for every seed must die before it grows.
and though above the world may toil and turn,
no prying spade will find you here below.

Now safe beneath their wisdom and their feet,
Here i will teach you truly how to sleep.

Come All You Weary — Thrice

123

I've been tagged (by Matt) with the fifth sentence meme. (quite some time ago apparently, but I just noticed it now)

1. Pick up the nearest book
2. Open to page 123
3. Find the fifth sentence
4. Post the next three sentences
5. Tag five people and acknowledge who tagged you

So here goes:

The irreversible character of discovery suggests that no solution of a problem can be accredited as a discovery if it is achieved by a procedure following definite rules. For such a procedure would be reversible in the sense that it could be traced back stepwise to its beginning and repeated at will any number of times, like any arithmetical computation. Accordingly, any strictly formalized procedure would also be excluded as a means of achieving discovery."

Purely out of curiosity at what books people have near their computer, I'll tag Jon, Timmo, Bryan and Greg. But none of them should feel any obligation to respond.

John Polkinghorne - "Faith, Science & Understanding" Chapter 1

I figured that since I haven't had time for any of my own writings these days I'd conduct a little experiment. Just two days ago I added the 18th book to my "in progress" list. (I know, I really must stop doing that.) Anyway, I've decided to try my hand a journaling on each chapter. It seems like such a practice could go a long way towards something resembling retention. Then I thought to myself, "what better way to keep myself from lazy journaling than submitting it for public review!" Now if my "in progress" list is any indication, I can't guarantee that I'll remained disciplined in this new venture. Even so, I figured it was worth a shot. That said...

Chapter 1 - Theology in the University
In chapter 1 Polkinghorne makes two basic arguments. First he argues for the rightful place of theology in the university. Secondly he argues for a second-order role of theology as theological metaphysics. Theological metaphysics, in Polkinghorne's opinion, is the only place one might expect to come to a "theory of everything." Such a theory would be far more "…all encompassing and intellectually satisfying than any Grand Unified Theory of particle physics could ever be." (25)

Polkinghorne's argument for theology's rightful place in the university begins with two assertions. First, there is the value of knowledge for its own sake, and secondly, he holds to the fundamental unity of all knowledge. From these two assertions his argument proceeds: 1. The University's primary focus ought to be the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. He feels that those who view the university as a means of pragmatically serving the human race are mistaking a desirable outcome for the purpose itself. 2. There is an essential unity to all knowledge. Therefore, any particular bit of knowledge ought to meaningfully connect with the universal complex of knowledge in general. 3. Religious experience is ubiquitous throughout humanity, which leads to his conclusion: The study of theology as an area of human knowledge deserves a rightful place at the table of scholarship.

Polkinghorne then argues for a second-order application of theology, for to speak of God is to speak of the one from whom the whole of reality flows and thus ought rightfully envelop the whole of human knowledge and understanding. He goes on to argue that when faced with the layered nature of reality, it is irresponsible to let one level swallow up the other. To do so is to commit what A.N. Whitehead calls "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness." (11) Such an approach does not do justice to the whole of our lived experience.

An example of just such a move is witnessed when one comes to grips with what the cosmologists claim regarding the inevitable end to which our universe is progressing. The Universe is winding down to either collapse or chaos. If we let this physical reality swallow up the meaning experienced in love, joy and morality we are forced into either complete despair, or a sort of "heroic atheism." (25) Instead, Polkinghorne argues that the physical reality considered here ought not swallow up the rest of our human experience. Rather, since all knowledge is one, a more satisfying conclusion is available to us. We do not experience life as strictly physical realities. There is love, there is reason, there is beauty, there is morality, there is personality. Taken together, these attributes point towards a reality that is not reducible to mere particle physics, or the second law of thermodynamics. With Polkinghorne, I would agree that a personal God is a more satisfying explanation for the whole of human experience and knowledge than the sort of impersonal power that Hume, Russell and others argue for.

Quote to ponder: "[We must] refrain from reaching easy but worthless conclusions by exalting the objective over the subjective, the repeatable over the unique, the impersonal over the personal." (24)

I think I like John Wesley

"For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried to Abraham’s bosom. But, what if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angles."

Christianity, American style

Or perhaps more accurately, Texas style.

Man and the Machine

There came a day when Man awoke. He was all alone with the machine. From the first day he knew he couldn’t live without it, for outside of the machine there was nothing. This isolation reminded him that, though he was free to explore, his freedom was limited. Whatever he was, he was bound to the machine. As Man pondered this he was assailed by a strange sensation — a deep longing that he couldn’t shake. “From where do I come? Where shall I go? To what shall I live?” And the most puzzling question of all, “What am I?” With these questions in hand Man entered the machine.

It was his hope that within the machine he would find the answers to his questions. With great zeal he began his work. As Man explored, he marveled at the complexity of the machine. At times he was overcome with it’s beauty. He would sit silent for hours just experiencing its wonder. “What does all this mean?” he would ask himself. But no answers were forthcoming.

As Man’s quest progressed he couldn’t help but think that the nature of the machine was such that only something like Man, only much greater, had crafted it. There was much that went on within the machine that seemed impossible if it were not by the work of such a being. For what seemed like an age, Man devoted considerable energy to pondering what such a being would be like and wondering why it created what it did.

With time Man came to see that he could manipulate the machine to achieve his own purposes. This was no small revelation, for now he was able to discover so much more than he had ever dreamed! Bit by bit he brought the machine under his control. With each new advance Man’s knowledge of the machine increased and with each discovery he was stunned by what he found. Phenomena that once seemed almost magical, now appeared to have deeper mechanisms that drove them. Man was so impressed by his discoveries that he no longer felt he needed to postulate a “super-man.” With the abandonment of a creator agency, Man returned to his task, but as he worked the questions he was seeking to answer were starting to feel strangely hollow. Or perhaps it was that the field of answers he had to choose from were now starting to feel a bit more absurd. No matter where he looked, all he found was more machine, more complexity, more noise, but no reason for their existence or workings. As wonderful as the machine seemed to be at times, he could find no point for its existence. It was just there, running on a track between an apparently pointless beginning and an ultimately meaningless end.

The more Man struggled to extract answers from the machine the more it began to lose the beauty he had once seen in it. It was as if the machine mocked him. In all its intractable mystery, it continued on its blind path with no care for the pleadings of the man within it. Frustrated with his attempts to find answers by examining the machine, he traced the long journey back to the place he had first experienced it’s beauty. In desperation he screamed with everything in him, “WHAT AM I?” All his strength gone, he fell to the ground, sobbing. His body shook as waves of anger and despair washed over him. All around him there was nothing but the whirr and click of a machine that took no notice of him.

It was at this time that something caught Man’s attention. A soft glow from deep within the machine flickered through a gap in the floor. Wiping his eyes, he peered between the metal plates. Nothing could have prepared him for what he was about to discover.

Far below him he could see a small monitor nestled deep in a tangle of wires and in it there was an image of himself. It was a birds eye view, as if a camera was positioned directly above him. He looked up, hoping to see what was watching him, but as he did he realized something that wasn’t quite right. The image of himself in the monitor turned and looked towards the ceiling a split second before he did. He turned back and looked into the monitor, then quickly, he turned away. Sure enough, the visage of himself moved before he moved his body. Every move he made the monitor displayed just prior to his enacting it! He would wave his arms or shake his head but his visage would begin it’s movements before he could get his body to react.

He was beginning to think the machine was reading his mind until the video began to gradually speed up. He watched himself peering through the crack, then lift himself off the floor and proceed to sit with his hands in his lap. Apart form a slight swaying from side to side, the image of himself simply sat motionless. This went on for quite some time until suddenly the screen flickered and went dark. Terrified, he lifted himself off the floor and sat up. With his hands lying limp in his lap, Man sat. He felt like he should run, or lift his arms, anything just to prove the video wrong. He could do that couldn’t he? He was a free creature after all... He was the originator of his actions, not the machine... Right? Long hours passed as he sat motionless; his body lost all feeling as the deepest truth he had yet discovered slowly saturated his being.

All this time, even now, this very second, his actions, his thoughts... He had never been controlling the machine; it had been controlling him. Why had he not seen it before? He had no autonomous existence. He was, and always had been, merely a part of the machine. His freedom, his experience—they were all illusory. He had never really been searching for answers to begin with—it had always been the machine. Never Man. Only the machine. In a single moment Man’s existence collapsed.

The machine devoured him, and all was silent.

The Unwinding Cable Car

Trying to wrap up end of quarter papers, hence the relative silence. How bout a song then?

Some thoughts from Salman Rushdie

From Rushdie's letter to the six billionth living person:

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong? - it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves. To my mind religion, even at its most sophisticated, essentially infantilises our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us: the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge? Is unbelief just the first step on the long slide into the brain death of cultural relativism, according to which many unbearable things - female circumcision, to name just one - can be excused on culturally specific grounds, and the universality of human rights, too, can be ignored? (This last piece of moral unmaking finds supporters in some of the world's most authoritarian regimes, and also, unnervingly, on the editorial page of the Daily Telegraph.)

Well, no, it isn't, but the reasons for saying so aren't clear-cut. Only hard-line ideology is clear-cut. Freedom, which is the word I use for the secular-ethical position, is inevitably fuzzier. Yes, freedom is that space in which contradiction can reign, it is a never-ending debate. It is not in itself the answer to the question of morals, but the conversation about that question. And it is much more than mere relativism, because it is not merely a never-ending talk show, but a place in which choices are made, values defined and defended.

A response from Alex
I whole heartedly agree with Rushdie's discomfort regarding morality being unquestioningly legislated by "religion". Even his comments on "fuzzieness" I find myself empathizing with. One insight I have come to recently is that on the level of the individual, moral truth can only be recognized through praxis. When I speak of an "absolute morality" I would want to clarify that what I am advocating is not that there are a certain set of actions that will be true for all peoples in all places. Neither would I wish to be construed as saying there's an exhaustive list of rules somewhere that if we just followed all of them we'd be "absolutely moral". Reality is more complicated (or maybe simple?) than that. To try and construct such a list only leads away from Christianity and towards moralism.

Still, I continue to disagree with any line of thinking which claims humanity ultimately has no transcendent ground yet we can still have such things as moral obligations. I would wish to reemphasize that my position does not at all claim that people who do not believe in God cannot be good, but rather if there is no God there's no such thing as good.

So where does the Christian find his guiding star when it comes to ethics? Is it because all actions have an inherent (deontological) moral bias? Perhaps that's to constricting. Would it be better to then only consider the results of our actions? (teleological) Bernard Adeney has a few helpful words here:

Deontological and teleological ethics are often treated as mutually exclusive. The polarization of means and ends, the antithesis between principals and results, this is a characteristic weakness of Western dualistic thought. It leads to war between the absolutists and the relativists. The absolutists are thought to be too narrow and rigid. The relativists are thought to be too wishy-washy.

Actually, the distinctions between deontology and teleology helpfully show two necessary and contrasting elements in moral choice. These are not contradictory, but complementary. The way they fit together cannot be determined by abstract philosophical principle. The concrete situation in which moral choices are embodied reveal the ways in which principles and results interact. [emphasis mine]

As a Christian I believe there are absolute moral principles and rules that reflect the character of God. These moral principles underlie all human behavior and are based in the fact that we live in a moral universe. Human beings were created in the image of God and have an intrinsic value. in the words of the Westminster Confession, we are created "to glorify God and to enjoy him forever." While these deontological absolutes are expressed and emphasized differently in different places and times, they are clearly affirmed by Christians in all cultures.

The central moral absolute that follows from these Christian affirmations is " 'The Lord our God , the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' ... 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these" (Mk 12:29-31).

Strange Virtues, Ethics in a Multicultural World pp.149-150

A word from my son, Adrian

Tom Wright on Heaven & Our Role in Creation

On the merits of arguing and commitment

Two quotes by Trevor Hart that made me smile.

Our conscience will not permit the sort of cosmopolitan wandering from one perspective to another which suggests that none is any more or less true than others. Yet to others who demand that we should justify our stance and show forth its truth we can ultimately respond only with an invitation to come and stand where we stand, to view the world through our eyes, and see whether the result does not make more sense than the one which they themselves are familiar with. We must be equally open, of course, to the risky business of being prepared to do the same.
Faith Thinking pp.67

An important part of our own commitment to one particular tradition or faith standpoint will be our desire to share this outlook with others, to testify to its truth, to express the universal intent attaching to it by exposing others to it, engaging in the humble task of persuasion not in order to suppress or curb the holding of other points of view, but in order that others might be free to consider ours and explore the possibilities inherent within it as a account of truth. As I have already suggested the condition under which such testimony or witness must be engaged in this a willingness to consider the views held by others, not because we are not confident in the truthfulness of our own perspectives, but precisely because we are, and because we are also more committed to truth than to our own accounts of it.
Faith Thinking pp.69

A new perspective on doubt (to me anyway)

It has recently been brought to my attention that doubt is not properly conceived strictly as a negative position. In reality we have a two sided coin; doubt being the negative side, is balanced by positive and simultaneous belief. The one cannot exist without the other. For instance to utter a statement in the form of "I doubt P" is at the same moment affirming "I believe not P", or "I believe P is not proven". What is revealed here is that in order for us to doubt anything we must believe something else which we are not at present doubting.

As Trevor Hart puts it in his highly recommended book "Faith Thinking",

Thus every doubt has a fiduciary structure and is rooted in a set of faith commitments which for so long as they support the doubt, cannot themselves be doubted. The branch upon which every doubt sits is a belief. To insist on chopping this branch off in the misguided attempt to assume a wholly uncommitted position can only result in self-referential destruction, as the initial doubt itself falls to the floor.

The reason I find all this so fascinating is that for quite some time now I have felt that in the absence of mathematical/empirical certitude the most responsible epistemological stance to assume is that of doubt. (not just epistemological humility) As such, my Christianity, which does not at all rise to such a level, has been held in tension with this basic conviction. However after reflecting on the above perspective it becomes clear that doubt is not analogous to an uncommitted stance. The question must then be raised, what does our commitment rest on in light of the always searching tendrils of Cartesian doubt?

I'm hoping I will have something to say to this question in an upcoming post I'm working on while also responding to Matt's questions here. Apologies for the roughness of anything I post this week. Whatever I end up posting is an attempt by me to synthesize material we are being drenched with while away at "intensives". (aka two weeks of 8 hour per day lectures) It's a wonderful exercise in drinking from a fire hose. I feel like complete mush at the end of the day, but I also can't help but feel like I need to do something with what was thrown our way before crawling into bed. Otherwise I fear it will all seep out my ears as I sleep. Speaking of sleep...

PBS "The Question of God", Featuring Freud & Lewis