Truth, my findings

My anonymous friend recently left a comment that I would like to respond to for the purpose of defining what I believe to be Truth, and more specifically, what evidence I have of this Truth. The comment was the following:

I think you're intelligent enough to know not to teach people things that you know to be untruths. That would go against the Christianity that you hold so dear...I want you to make sure that you're right. Justified, backed up by Scripture and experience, I-know-this-is-absolute-Truth kind of right. Right as in upstanding morality...Because, with all of this introspection coupled with all this isolation in the past few months, you walk a dangerous line of coming to really stunning conclusions or falling into the trap of thinking that you're right all the time because you've had nobody better to compare yourself to. And this isn't just you - anybody would need to watch himself on this issue.

The proposition that logic, evidence and experience determining rightness, ironically, is one of the biggest lessons that I learned in debate. And as such, it is something I have been giving a good deal of thought to over the last month or two (in trying to teach debate at Metro)... and this comment just so happens to illustrate something that I would like to challenge with a theory of my own.

With regards to "right" and also with regards to those "better", or rather, those more knowledgeable or more skilled in discourse or philosophizing than me... I will respond with a story:

When I was at Grove City College, I had this theology professor, an older guy, I think in his 70s, maybe 60s, who taught three of my theology classes. He had his doctorate from Princeton, and was a devout Calvinist. With regards to predestination, he had books and books of evidence, as well as extrapolations from scripture, to prove that he was "right". He has been teaching college for 30 years, he is one of the most intelligent theologians at Grove City, and his office is simply a labyrinth of books at best. I must have listened to hours and hours of a dissertation style proposition and defense of several concepts within scripture, and the resultant truths that he concluded, from years of study and experience, as to the Truth of our relationship with God, with man, and with ourself.... and yet, at the end of the day, he was wrong.

I say this plainly because the idea is simple. This is not an exception to the rule. There are thousands of theologians around the world who have proven their truth. All it takes is a listening ear to know that God does not exist, that God does exist, that God does not care about humanity, that God does care about humanity, that salvation is a myth, that salvation is eternal life with God, that it comes by faith, that it comes by work, that Jesus was a prophet, that Jesus was the son of God.

It appears that rightness is sloppy at best in the field of philosophy and theology. The rules of math do not seem to apply. (Ironically, the rules of math, that there is this provable right and wrong, only apply in simple math. Ask any person who has studied advanced math or physics, and they will tell you that anything beyond simply math is all guess work and approximations at best.)

The point I am trying to contend here is simple. The biggest thing that I learned from being in debate is that: just because someone wins an argument or has more legitimate evidence, does not mean they are right.

Tragic, I know. It kind of rocks the boat of Truth. The reason why I contend this is simple. I do not want to think that anything I hold to be right or true is such because it is an extrapolation of evidence or experience. While I hold both of those in high regards, because of my knowledge of their manipulability, I can not find in them adequate grounds to hold something to be in the realm of "I-know-this-is-absolute-Truth kind of right". To me, evidence, experience, and even logic itself is flexible. I should know, as I have often been the flexor to it time and again over the last several years. Morality included, ask any history major, fluxes with time.

Well, then, what are we left with... Should we simply become but existentialist, believing truth and value to only exist as we feel it should? Do we try and define our own reality from the columns of our insanity? I do not think that is or only option.

To me, as it will forever be, Truth resonates within the soul. This is not a contention, an opinion, or a proposition. This is a fact, or more appropriately, a Truth. In the Kingdom of God, Truth resonates within our spirit.

Today I watched Equilibrium, a dystopia wherein society is "saved" by being stripped of its emotion. Such a decision was necessary, as emotion leads to hate and thus war. The contention was simply, that humanity, as a race, will not survive emotion.... one of the primary contention of the film is that emotion is what makes life worth living. A caste or level system is established, wherein basic human function is at the bottom of the ladder, with emotion being at the top. While one can exist without emotion, such a disposition also strips them of their identity and humanity. Without emotion, life becomes pointless.

On the same tune, I will project my own theory, as an extrapolation from the Truth that I know about this world.... While basic human existence is at the bottom, and emotion is surely necessary to be fully human, I do not find it hard to contend that operation within the spiritual realm is what makes life worth living, and thus the top rung of the social latter. To me, as marriage is to illustrate a relationship between man and God, I do also believe that human emotion is to illustrate a relationship between the flesh and the spirit. Marriage demonstrates a bond between two people, and thus demonstrates our bond with God. In the same way, human emotion demonstrates that there is an unpredictable, intangible to life that makes it worth living, thus showing us that there is a Truth that exist outside of our capacity for understanding.

Simply put, it would take a foolish man to believe that he could understand the world. It is wise man that knows that he can not understand the workings of the world, and thus intelligently adjusts his disposition accordingly. The release of cognitive control of our micro universe is not an act of stupidity or surrender, but rather an act of intelligence. While it may seem that the safest way to live life is without emotion, Equilibrium strongly contends that emotion is worth the risk. In the same way, while it most certainly seems that it is safest to live life rejecting things of the spirit, the kingdom of God contends that the ways God are certainly worth the risk.

In the here and now, the Bible speaks of a war, not of peace. While I certainly view piece as our target, and strongly contended that in the hereafter, there will be eternal peace with God, until then, I believe that our strategies of hiding our heads in the sand simply will not do. Unfortunately for us, there is no Canada to move away to in the fight for Truth. In reality, there is the choice to fight, or to slip away into nothingness, eternally forgotten.

In response to Anonymous, I assure you, I will be teaching only that which I know to be True. However, I should also inform you that such Truth was not arrived upon because of any book, or scripture, or life lesson. Rather, it was a culmination of all of the above, with its Truth sorted by the resonance I feel within myself as part of the Kingdom of God.

****************************

I do offer one final comment to anonymous.... I do value peer input in life. While I do believe that by the spirit, we can distinguish Truth from untruth, the does not mean that I or we can spontaneously construct or regurgitate truth. For whatever reason, I do strongly believe that we are social creatures, instructed to live a social life.

With that in mind, I would ask you for your continued input on my earth shattering ideas. And please, if you objected to one of my ideas, give me convincing reasons why, so that we can discuss concepts in their entirety and not simply throw around shocking phrases or titles like only amateurs would. If logic, evidence, scripture, and experience are what you believe to determine "rightness", then when you object to the rightness of any of my ideas, please respond with adequate quantities of each so that we can have a full conversation.