TOLERANCE

TOLERANCE
"Tolerance," the author G.K. Chesterton once said, " is the virtue of those who don't believe anything."


Isn’t it strange how those who rant about tolerance are often the most intolerant of other’s views! The idea of tolerance has gained such widespread and universal approval in our politically correct times that one could say it has attained cult status. It is for this reason that I would like to dedicate these lines to a closer look at the idea and to get some perspective that may be helpful to understand some of our current issues.

The Asia-Pacific Interfaith Conference has been and gone and in its wake have been a series of comments and letters in our newspapers, not to mention demonstrations, which are evidence of some deep felt concerns by people of various persuasions. Needless to say they have generated more heat than light.

The waters are muddied.

In the Northern Advocate Tuesday June 5 on the opinion page there is a plethora of various views (which I believe is a healthy sign in a newspaper) but in virtually all of them there is either a direct or indirect reference to everyone’s best friend “tolerance”. Even Joanne McNeill’s piece where she extols the virtue of her intolerance of either gods or dogs is indirectly affirming that even in our PC age we should tolerate her opinions. And indeed we do, in this relatively free society. Freedom of speech is not only tolerated but also encouraged, (so far). That is not so in many other cultures including some of those represented in the Interfaith Conference. Although I don’t agree with one of her propositions I do the other. What I do like about her article is that she makes no bones (no pun intended) about what is right and what is wrong. None of that PC tolerance stuff here. I particularly enjoyed her parting shot “Imaginary deities have no place in Parliament and dogs no place on the loose.”
Well I don't believe in the God she doesn't believe in either- Give me the real one every time!

We know tolerance has run amok when no distinction is made (other than gender) between Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. You may think that no one in his or her right mind would do that but that is exactly my point. Any reference to “a right mind” presupposes a standard, an objective measure, a universal standard of right and wrong. Where does this come from?
Tolerance taken to extreme actually becomes intolerable; you can’t actually live like that. Tolerance then must be an integral part of an objective moral framework, or worldview. When tolerance becomes an absolute-, which it does when it is not put into the context of a correct moral framework, then it actually opens the way for tyrants. Hitler’s excesses were tolerated until it was too late. The whole atmosphere of tolerance (as it is now practiced) is a so-called liberal idea that is a spin off of another misconception.
The distillation of ideas goes something like this:

• There is no such thing as absolute truth.
• Therefore all those who claim their particular worldview is true can only claim it is true to them.
• If it is not true in a universal sense, then it is not true for all people at all times.
• Therefore it is only relatively true.

Because there are no absolute truths (all truths being supposedly relative) then all propositions are only relatively true (true only for those that espouse it)
Because there is relative truth in possibly all propositions and worldviews we must tolerate them all. And thus relativism is born and hence the absolutizing of “tolerance” (accordingly this means that all ideas are equally right and have the same value so they all must be accepted and tolerance in this sense is total but for one exception: we ought not tolerate any idea that that might trump or be superior to tolerance. Like for example right and wrong have to be subservient to the idea of TOLERANCE.)
Sounds grand doesn’t it? But wait let’s look at the initial supposition a bit closer:

"There is no such thing as absolute truth."

 This statement is itself proposed as an absolute, no such thing means without exception therefore it is an absolute. But the statement itself is therefore contradictory. If nothing is absolutely true then the above statement is not absolutely true, and if that is so we may disregard it, and so we must if we are to remain rational people. It is in fact a self-refuting statement.
If the foundation statement is false then all of the arguments built upon it fall to the ground.
We must reassess.
If the statement "There is no such thing as absolute truth" is in itself a contradiction,
then it is reasonable to propose there is such thing as absolute truth.
If absolutes exist then it is reasonable to propose absolute morality exists.
If some things are always wrong then some things shouldn’t be tolerated.
Now we have arrived at the perspective within which we may exercise tolerance. Tolerance without limits should not be tolerated!

The very idea of tolerance presupposes some things:
Tolerance is a moral attribute. (Now I realize at the mention of that word you are ready to grab the remote and change the channel but don’t switch just yet! Like it or not if you believe that tolerance is better in some instances than intolerance, and I hope you do, the inescapable reality is that you are dealing with a moral question.
Moral attributes are only found in connection with personhood (mind will and emotions- dogs don’t defecate on your lawn out of spite- contrary to some opinions.)
Tolerance is better than intolerance (in some cases)
Therefore there is an objective standard ( “better” is closer to “best” than “worse”)
An objective standard is universal and therefore independent of humankind. (It remains true even if you don’t believe it or are ignorant of it.)
If it is objectively true and real, (just as say the law of gravity) and it is a moral function of personhood independent of mankind then
It is reasonable to propose that a transcendent being instituted (brought into existence) the moral absolutes.
If we take the whole realm of good and evil, right and wrong- it is ineradicably true that these very words presuppose a standard but it cannot be a measure or standard such as mankind could have originated. The old measure we called a “foot” (12 inches) may well have been a benchmark conveniently adopted roughly from the foot and eventually standardized. However such is not the case with morality. If a society such as existed in early America decided the abolition of slavery was a good thing, then we rightly assume the nation has progressed morally. If that is so we then are pressed to acknowledge there must have been a moral norm or standard towards which they were working. Therefore a moral standard exists which is not dependent for its existence on culture or time. Morality then gives evidence of a reality beyond mans existence. A transcendent reality.
The editorial from “Hawkes Bay Today” rightly points out the rigid intolerance of Muslim extremism, and it is no secret that any vacuum brought about by the absurd relativist view of tolerance and neutrality postulated by our secular government will be simply swallowed up by a strident and aggressive worldview such as we see happening in other countries. We do, as the editorial affirmed have a strong Christian heritage and it is on the basis of that we have historically been tolerant of other beliefs. Religion is a question of conscience and debate (as politics ought to be also) it is from this perspective that we tolerate other views and respect free speech. Ironically it is on the strength of these ideals that make both Christianity and Democracy so easy for aggressive views- both religious and political- easy targets of abuse. We need to guard these freedoms jealously.
Kerry

"An Apostle For Atheism"- Heaven Sent?

(To read the Article from the Northern Advocate, Tues. Oct 16,2007 Click on the Article)

Dawkins- Heaven Sent?- A response...
An article entitled “An Apostle for Atheism” caught my eye in the local paper Tuesday Oct. 16. Interestingly, and might I say, even prophetically- the original meaning for the Greek word “apostle” means “to be sent” This begs the question- “ Who, Mr. Dawkins- sent you?”

If it is true that God does not exist then one could concede that child abuse is a reasonable term for those who teach the existence of God to their children, but this must also be admitted- that those who teach atheism - if God in fact does exist- are also abusing their children to the same and arguably to a greater degree. All of this rhetoric only serves one thing and that is the importance of at least asking the question and endeavouring to find the answer to the best of one’s ability- Does God exist?

It has been said that ones choice of who to go to for the answer to ones questions predetermines the answer likely to be received. This is very revealing as to ones presuppositions and prejudices. The question that people do not very often consider in respect of the existence of God is this- is a scientist e.g. Richard Dawkins for all his eloquence, and scientific knowledge, at all qualified to answer this question? Consider the parameters of science, and its presuppositions and empirical methodology. Does a person who pre-supposes materialism, the idea that all of reality (what ever exists) may be fully comprehended and explained by natural laws, observability and repeatability, which is the scientific method, does he or she necessarily afford the best possible bet to give the correct answer? In other words what on earth can the scientist teach us about a dimension outside of his realm of expertise when at the very outset the idea of a supernatural sphere is precluded by his model of reality?

As Peter Block writes in "The Answer to How is Yes"-

'If we believe something does not exist unless we measure it, then we put aside: love, feeling, intuition, art and philosophy.'

 It is impossible that empiricism could adequately answer all questions of reality. Take this thought expressed by Professor Haldane which is even more basic: 

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

(see also: Compelling Reason)
 Clearly the empirical (scientific) worldview has problems with the idea that all of reality is accounted for in it's system!


It’s like saying miracles do not exist, everything can be explained naturally, that is according to the laws of nature. Nature is all there is and a miracle by definition cannot be explained naturally, therefore they do not exist. Circular reasoning- plain and simple.

C.S. Lewis made the interesting point that although everything moves and behaves according to laws of nature (that is according to established patterns, for that is all they are) no law of nature ever moved anything. What then or rather Who set it all in motion? Or as others have said: Who lit the touchpaper?

Not many years ago people generally believed in an eternal universe, no beginning no end, and thus the idea of a necessary creator was neatly and easily dispensed with. Einstein came along and with his laws of relativity posited some interesting theories that would ultimately affect our understanding of the universe. Hubble appeared and added scientific weight to the theory with the observable bending of light in space. The Hubble telescope has continued to do so. The upshot of it all is the widely held view afforded by the laws of thermodynamics that the universe is expanding and through extrapolation and working backwards a beginning of the universe has been calculated aka “the big bang”. 

My question is: how very different is this idea (that everything came into being at a particularity), than the idea of creation? If this represents the truth of the origin of the universe it is remarkably close to the creation account of Genesis (which, translated means “Beginnings”).
The essential difference is this: Scientists of the Dawkins ilk would have us believe that everything (and I mean everything) simply came out of nowhere. That is, that out of nothing came everything! Which view actually requires a greater “leap of faith”? (In actual fact even Dawkins found that he could not subscribe to this giant leap of faith and so had to make something out of nothing... uh if you see what I mean!) The view that nothing created everything or that out of a transcendent being (one that does not belong to our space/time continuum) came a creative Word from whom and through whom and for whom all was created?

The scientists have good evidence to support the “Big Bang” but it raises another question: What (or whom) caused that? Ex nihilo nihil fit: From nothing comes nothing. As C. S. Lewis pointed out in God in the Dock, 

"An egg which came from no bird is no more natural than a bird which had existed from all eternity."

Beyond the big bang is (to those who limit themselves to good science and refrain from philosophy) an impenetrable wall, since all matter began there, not only space but time also; these are the self-confessed limits to science. But good scientists will all admit that every contingent effect has a cause. (The Principle of Causality) It becomes clear then that the idea of the creation of the universe by a transcendent being outside of the time/space continuum is not only plausible but also a very reasonable explanation. Nevertheless it is not an explanation, which is devoid of an element of trust, of which risk is a necessary corollary. Equally fascinating is the realization that these conditions of faith and trust along with risk are precisely the stuff of all biblical narratives. As Ravi Zacharias has said, 

“God has put enough into the world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing, and he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone.” (The Real Face of Atheism Page 113).

 This is precisely why science and reason will never make faith void. Neither is faith antithetical to good science. It is that way by design.

Robert Jastrow, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote this in 1978, well before the recent discoveries described previously. He wrote in "God and the Astronomers":

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Good science recognizes the importance of a correct starting point, if the standard by which you measure all of reality (in this case the empirical method) precludes the possibility of anything outside of those parameters then either you have to admit the inadequacy of your method or make a fool of yourself and try to make fools of others. Even Dawkins admits he is “almost certain” God does not exist. He is after all merely a man and he has many equally erudite peers who take the opposing view.

Many scientists with impeccable credentials would and do argue the opposite view- and Alister McGrath who wrote “The Dawkins Delusion” is one of them. At least he has viewed the question from both sides, having been an adult who was at one time a non-believer and now has found sufficient reason (not in spite of, but in part because of- his scientific, disciplined mind) to be a believer in the existence of God.
 

 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

(2 Thessalonians 2:10,11)

This brings us back full circle I guess- Who Mr. Dawkins- sent you! Are you God's delusion sent for those who love not the truth?

Faith or Trust we Must- But in What or Whom?

It is interesting reading the various views that are offered in the local newspaper. My particular interest is how the subject of “God” is handled.

Some years ago I was taught that what a person believed is determined by why he/she believed it. In other words, psychology comes before theology (or philosophy or worldview, whatever). Every one of us comes to the realm of “belief” with preconceived ideas.
It is no point denying that everyone of us is a believer (in something) If you were to dispute this point I would ask a question like this: “So in your view you don’t believe you’re a believer?” How could this be answered? “Yes I do believe I’m not a believer”, or “No I do not believe I’m a believer” Some things are undeniable. Why is it that life thrusts upon us this need to believe in something/someone?
· Primarily because finite minds are unable to grasp all knowledge but we know it is to our advantage to know all we possibly can. Knowledge is power.
· Not all are equipped to know, or, have neither the time necessary to know nor the inspiration to learn what others have gleaned through a lifetime of toil in their field of expertise.
· So we choose our experts.

I have it on good authority (or so it seems to me) that 90% of what we hold as true (what we know) is taken on the authority of others. We trust what they have told us is true. That means that most of what we live our life out of (our world view) has been dictated (narrated?) to us by others whom we hold in esteem or whom we trust. Maybe you don’t agree. When you were a child you trusted that when your parent taught that touching the potbelly stove was not a good thing to do, you agreed. Or maybe you didn’t- at first. (Disbelief can be a pain) Go to school- believe the teacher, go to work- believe the boss, go to the doctor- take the medicine.

We believe that most of what we have believed, we know by experience, (touch the potbelly- get burned) but this is not so. It is just such experiences that teach us it is easier to believe (in this case the parent) than to experience the pain. These painful experiences (sooner or later) reinforce and condition us to the benefit of trust and of trusting those who are our authority. (Even if, as it does for most of us, we only believe in the ultimacy of our own authority and judgement) And so we grow up with a set of beliefs and a source of those beliefs. We become believers.

So how far have we come?
Everyone is a believer
Most of what we believe is based on the authority of others (have you personally examined the footprints on the moon?)
Because of the way reality is, like it or not we all yield/agree to a belief system.
Whoever or whatever becomes your authority (your source/s of truth/knowledge will therefore dictate your perception of reality.)
What becomes essential is to examine what we believe and the reliability of our sources. An old sage said “ The unexamined life is not worth living”
Essential to that examination is to ask the question: Does my worldview adequately answer the big questions of life?
What are the big questions of life?
Origins-  Where do we come from?
Purpose-  What are we here for?
Security-  What will keep me safe in an ultimate sense?
Fulfulment- Where will I find the most meaning for my life?
Destiny- Where am I going and how do I get there?


In the Saturday June 16 Northern Advocate in an interview with an Anglican priest some lines were quoted by Dylan. I would like to quote a line from him also: “ You gotta serve somebody” I’m not quite sure what Dylan had in mind, but I know that there is no alternative but to believe/serve one thing or the other. There is no such thing as neutrality; life does not give that option. All are believers and what you believe decides how you live.
An ancient wisdom says that whoever/whatever you give/yield yourself to you become a servant/slave of.
If your sources tell you the Bible needs to be demythologised, pretty soon it all becomes relative and you can barely assert positively whether there is a God let alone affirm the resurrection. Man becomes the measure of all things. Today's society particularly in the West has abandoned the idea of absolutes.

There are many who take an atheistic position not out of a deep sense of the reality of that system but merely because it happens to be the most convenient, its demands are miniscule it leaves people to the lifestyle that is preferred. And it is (in our society) so widely followed there is no small comfort drawn from the mutuality of that creed. It’s a very “natural” position to take, and no real commitment or effort is required to follow it. Also in this category are those who use religion in the same way, it is convenient. People have never really thought through the implications of their beliefs, they are accepted but only to the degree that it is expedient to do so. This type of “believer” (both the casual atheist and the casual religious exponent) really has at heart another set of beliefs at work at the deeper level. They go something like this “go with the flow”, “peace at any price”, “live and let live” and the like. Truth is sacrificed for peace.

Even the agnostic (one who believes that these deeper issues cannot be known) is not neutral; he cannot consistently deny knowledge without also denying his own position, (how does he know that he cannot know?) All of these positions are at the most basic level escapist.
As a product of our secular society I was somewhat astounded to learn that up until a hundred or so years ago most of humanity throughout recorded history has held to the existence of God/gods. Equally astounding was the revelation that some of the thinkers of earlier times were highly sophisticated thinkers. And some of the arguments for the existence of God were accordingly highly developed. So much so that their arguments are still valid to this day. We tend to think this is the age of sophistication, in technological terms yes, in terms of ability to think- alas no! This is the busy age, not the thinking age. Consequently many people are incapable of reasoning through more than one or two layers of thought. We are easier to control that way.


 Beware of what you believe, beliefs translate into thoughts which arouse emotions which in turn
result in actions.