Wisdom. Information. Knowledge.
I was listening to NPR on the way home from work the other day. There was a segment on the show about Charles Darwin's seminal work "On the Origin of Species." The piece was noting the anniversary of the book's release, and also discussing how the text was circulated in 1859 when it was written.
Apparently, back then books were very expensive and hard to acquire. Consequently, most people couldn't buy them individually and instead subscribed to traveling library services that charged an annual fee. The service was compared to a modern day Netflix.
Anyway, the NPR program went on to discuss the fact that despite the fact that fewer books, and therefore information, was available to people, it was still easier for a layman to educate themselves enough to speak intelligently about a variety of complicated topics. It was also easier to stay abreast of newer developments.
This was interesting because, as the program noted, today it's much easier to access information on any topic. Everyday brings news about topics like astronomy or biology or chemistry, and all of these breakthroughs are explained to large audiences through the Internet or television. The abundance of information available to people today is much easier and cheaper to access. It would seem logical that people would be more informed today, not less informed.
The program theorized that in the past it was easier to become an expert because new developments were explained with less jargon and didn't require the same degree of technical expertise to understand. Here's what I took from that:
Information is everywhere. Knowledge is limited. Wisdom remains rare.
Those key principles seem to define life in the Information Age. Despite the fact that more information is available, few of us ever become knowledgeable through this information, and even fewer of us learn how to turn that knowledge into wisdom
One of experts featured on NPR noted that most people feel horribly out of their depth when asked to systematically assess information and form an opinion. Typically these folks gravitate towards people who promise to simplify things and bring them the truth. Basically, folks are always looking for someone to trust.
That's a dangerous position to be in, but it's also understandable. The world is a confusing place once you decide to think. As long as you close your mind, the world is simple. When you start thinking, things get really complicated. It makes sense that people would seek ways to clarify the world, but it's important to look in the right place.
Y'all know I look to God and his Word for my wisdom, but my knowledge and information come from everywhere. I trust myself to be able to apply the filter I've chosen, the filter of Christianity, to the the information I receive, and then gain some knowledge. I think it's important to understand what our filter in life is, and to understand how you apply it to the things you experience. If you don't even realize you have a filter, you're in trouble.
Filtering information is the only way to gain knowledge. We must decide what factoids are worth holding on to. Filtering knowledge is the only way to attain wisdom. We have to realize that knowledge is only useful when we understand how to use it.
Wisdom is the key. Without it, information and knowledge really don't matter. So, how do you get your wisdom?
Share
Pay Attention
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
38 comments:
Lil' man,
First, I hope you and yours had a fine Thanksgiving. But how in the world can you talk about information, knowledge, wisdom, God, His Word and Christianity and not mention the word Truth at all? How can you not talk of the liberal filter and how it treats all information equal, i.e., it treats truth as relative? This is an incredible blindspot in your writing. In fact, the liberal filter helps explain why even though information is more readily available, people are still apparently less intelligent than those of the past. If the seeking out and embracing of Truth is not paramount then information is as liberals say it is, namely, all equal. This means we should treat all information nondiscriminately and tolerantly. Meaning, we seek to avoid drawing distinctions and differences between competing information.
Thordaddy,
Can you explain what the "liberal filter" is?
Thank you.
Brenda,
A liberal filter is one in which all information is equalized through a process of nondiscrimination and tolerance.
For instance, the liberal filter will take the notion of God-ordained marriage and homosexual coupling and apply nondiscrimination and tolerance in order to claim they are the equivalent.
The true purpose though, for the masses at least, is to avoid acknowledging differences and what they really mean for society. This way liberal elites are unburdened in defining liberalism for the masses.
Thanks Thordaddy for explaining that, now may I ask what sort of filter does an outlet like Fox News use?
I'm not attempting to start anything, I'm just curious to read your thoughts on this.
Thank you.
Brenda,
I think on issues of race and religion, Fox News uses a liberal filter. On issues concerning the military and economy, I would say they use more of a traditional filter. On issues like homosexuality and feminism, there is a mixture of filters.
Another example of the liberal filter would be in the information concerning abortion and "reproductive rights." Through the process of nondiscrimination and tolerance, abortion is equalized with "reproductive rights." Meaning, when you fight for the right to abort, you fight for the right to reproduce. Of course, this is absurd. Abortion is antithetical to "reproductive rights," i.e., the right to reproduce. In fact, the right to reproduce is so unquestioned that a mother who mass murders her children-a phenomenon trending upwards as society gets more progressive-ISN'T even considered for sterilization. Again, we see the consequence of equalizing using the process of nondiscrimination and tolerance. A normal society would seriously consider banishing permanently the ability to have more children any mother who mass murders her children. We have so much "reproductive right" in this country that we can have an abortion and make people believe it was the same thing as conceiving a child. We have so much "reproductive right" that mass murdering your children is no disqualification from your right to reproduce again and perhaps perpetrate more barbarous evil.
Next time you hear an "American" say they are fighting for "reproductive right," you will know that they are entirely foolish or evil. Or more likely and necessarily, they will be both as nothing is more foolish than being evil.
@Thordaddy
Thats insightful, this explains why certain groups feel that there truths are absolute!
Thanks for the wisdom
lincolnperry,
Logic dictates an absolute truth that stands as a foundation for all else that we might know. Liberal orthodoxy says that absolute truth does not exist. Meaning, truth does not exist. We simply form our opinions and then euphemistically call it truth. Think of the incredible mindbending that must take place? Liberal orthodoxy attempts to assert the truth of no truth.
Y'all know I look to God and his Word for my wisdom(Big Man)
And the smile creeps across my face. ;)
@Thordaddy
It seems that those around here are disinclined to challenge your assumptions, and presuppositions.
Although I'm loath to categorize myself, because I don't fall into arbitrary categories, I suspect that you'd probably sum me up as a liberal, and perhaps a progressive, if you were privy to my value system.
Which I suppose gives me some credibility in a rebuttal to your generous assertion:
"A liberal filter is one in which all information is equalized through a process of nondiscrimination and tolerance."
I suspect you formulated this definition, and that it exists as part of your particular bias, mindset, or filter, as you embark on a mission to undermine what you consider to be liberal behavior, actions, and thought.
As a liberal, I don't process information in the way that you have outlined. Like you, and many others, I discriminate, and find that there're many things I don't tolerate: child abuse, rape, spousal abuse, and many other things too numerous to recount here.
Your assertion that liberals behave in a certain fashion doesn't make it so. It merely becomes your opinion, and one without a factual, or data-based framework.
Further, your argument for the existence of a "liberal filter" is a priori, which gives you an edge in a debate, because you get to define the terms under discussion, i.e. "liberal filter," and then proceed to list supposed effects of it.
Allow me to create a "conservative filter," or mindset, bias, slant, or what have you.
"A conservative filter is one in which all information is equalized through a process that says all persons must be seen as autonomous, and self-directed, with as little interference from government fiat as is practical in a Constitutional, federal, republic."
Under such a "filter" issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, homosexuality, child labor, prostitution, and a host of other issues, should, and would, come under the sole province of the individual, parent, or legal guardian.
By definition, a person is not "autonomous" if government usurps that autonomy by imposing its will upon the individual (except to protect property, life, and one's access to an autonomous existence), or a parent and their children.
Under such a filter, you'd be forbidden to make laws that would restrict individual autonomy, and neither could you use the courts to insist that parents give their children medical treatments which the parents are opposed to, or force children to attend school, or refrain from working unless certain conditions are met.
Bankruptcy wouldn't be allowed, as would all entitlement programs for corporations, businesses, and individuals.
No more farm subsidies, tax breaks for oil companies, minimum wage, or a host of other government incentives to either spur, protect, or suppress business.
In short, government would mainly mind its own business, and we, the individual, would do the same.
I find that those who claim to be adherents of conservative principles, and ideology, are the first to use the government to abrogate individual rights, rather than expand them.
No argument is ironclad, and this one is no exception, which underscores the folly of trying to put square pegs into round holes, that is, structuring an argument that's true under all instances, and every circumstance.
Black Diaspora,
It is not surprising to read a liberal acting in illiberal ways, but it is surprising that a liberal admits it. In this admission, you explicitly accept the idea that your highest principles must be restrained by something higher. But what is this higher principle and how is it not superior to liberal orthodoxy in organizing society?
There is a reason I don't really engage Thordaddy anymore, Black Diaspora, and this is why:
He will never admit to his own use of filters and will maintain that he operates from an absolute position of truth, because he believes his understanding of God's will is spot-on. And to disagree with him substantially is to be a "radical liberal."
He will talk in circles and run you around until you are dizzy, but you will never get any concession from him on any point, no matter how logically you present it.
Thordaddy said...
"Black Diaspora,
"It is not surprising to read a liberal acting in illiberal ways, but it is surprising that a liberal admits it."
What is "illiberal" about condemning attacks upon those that are targets of abuse in our society. I would think that any sane persons, regardless of their political bent, would do the same.
"In this admission, you explicitly accept the idea that your highest principles must be restrained by something higher."
A conundrum: Nothing can be higher than "highest." And I make no such admission.
I'm not an anarchist, and neither do I feel constrained to follow any precepts but that of my own conscience, which makes me the highest arbiter of my actions.
That said, I have purposely chosen to guide my life by a principle, a principle so pervasive that it's ubiquitous here, and probably throughout the various universes that stretch to infinity.
That principle is Life itself.
Using it as a guide merely, I'm not compelled to follow its dictates in all situations, since, contrary to your assertions, not all situations are equal.
Two wit: a killing of a person or persons to protect the self or another (self defense, war, policing) are not viewed, nor treated, in the same way as a wanton killing, a killing that victimizes, or is used to achieve an illegal, or unwarranted advantage over another.
"But what is this higher principle and how is it not superior to liberal orthodoxy in organizing society?"
Life as principle is not superior to any other "orthodoxy in organizing society," not better than conservatism, not better than liberalism, socialism, communism, or any other "ism."
Life represents merely another way that may be used to structure society, not the only way.
For me, it comes down to what works, given what we in society say we want, what we wish to establish as our highest values-- and those values, too, or subject to change, and evolution.
Life has only one constant, and that is "change." Change is an attribute of Life, but only one of them: There are many others.
To the degree, then, that you can harness an understanding of Life, to that degree do you define my principles, my values, my "filter," or any other guiding force in my Life.
@Deacon Blue: "He will talk in circles and run you around until you are dizzy, but you will never get any concession from him on any point, no matter how logically you present it."
My purpose in countering Thordaddy's post was to offer readers of this blog an alternative view.
When we believe that our "understanding of God's will is spot-on," then in that moment we stop listening to, and fulfilling God's will.
God can't be pinned down, otherwise he can't be said to be infinite in all his ways, although one might say accurately, that he's the same yesterday, today, and forever, because he can't stop being God, stop being himself, for a moment in eternity.
If that were the case, in that moment he wouldn't be God, and in that moment chaos would rule, and all would be lost.
"And to disagree with him substantially is to be a 'radical liberal.'"
In that case, he's constructed a win-win for himself, which precludes any benefit that may be mutually derived from dialog, or debate.
Cool. I've gone in with similar intentions before (to keep other people from confusion), and usually gotten drawn into pointless nonsense with him as a result, but maybe you can stay more on task that I ever was able, Black Diaspora.
;-)
@Deacon: "I've gone in with similar intentions before (to keep other people from confusion), and usually gotten drawn into pointless nonsense with him as a result...."
I hear you.
If it comes to that, I'll cease and desist. By that time, I will have left enough raw material behind for those who wish it, to draw their own conclusion on this matter.
Black Diaspora,
If your liberal orthodoxy is subsumed by acts of discrimination and intolerance, this represents a higher principle. What it is and how you came to accept it, as of now, is unknown. This principle of "Life" sounds like nothing more than your decision to do what you want when you want. Again, this is nothing more than the principle of extreme liberalism.
What principle allows/dictates you to discriminate and be intolerant? The principle of "Life?"
"This principle of "Life" sounds like nothing more than your decision to do what you want when you want. Again, this is nothing more than the principle of extreme liberalism.
"What principle allows/dictates you to discriminate and be intolerant? The principle of 'Life?'"
You're beginning to prove Deacon Blue's prescience when it comes to debating you.
You remind me of another debater: Constructive Feedback.
Like him, you ascribe to others whatever attribute you wish them to possess so that you may use such attributions to call into question their supposed social and political position, or mindset.
That's dishonest, and reduces you to a one-note orchestra.
Rather than take my stated position, which I call Life, and really give it full consideration, you dismiss it as nihilism and "extreme liberalism."
The irony: You show yourself to be an extremist, intolerant, and judgmental, which is the worse use of discrimination.
Life insists that I do unto others as I would have others do unto me. Hence, in a fragile ecosystem, where interdependence is paramount, it would be foolish to discount, destroy, or otherwise render null and void others within that system, just because I consider my group, and my part within that system to be morally pure, and necessary.
While I'm purging that which I feel is injurious to the system, I, in turn, may be threatening my existence as well.
We don't know enough about our social interdependence within the system of Life to make such judgments: Hence the death penalty may not serve our overall human existence, oppressing gays may be destructive to the whole, as would passing a bill to identify, and kill them, as is now being proposed in Uganda, and other contrary social constructs.
Now, wouldn't tolerance for all that exists within that system be more salutary to the system, than causing the extinction of that which we don't understand in terms of their contribution to the health of the whole.
Hitler believed that a "final solution" would serve his ends.
As a result of his social engineering, and his efforts toward building, and supporting, a master race, he may have done us all irreversible harm.
Thanks to him, the human race lost a large number of potential contributers to the perpetuation of the race. The Middle passage may have effectuated the same lost.
Give it some thought.
Right now, you're not thinking, you're regurgitating, and recycling.
Black Diaspora,
You ascribe to yourself the liberal label. This has to mean something that is understandable to the layman. In OUR time, to be liberal is to believe in "equality" and "freedom" by way of nondiscrimination and intolerance. When you then state that at times you discriminate and are intolerant-meaning you treat others unequally-what principle is invoked? You say it is the principle of "Life." But you need to give a more succinct explanation of what that means? What are your assertions? What are your axioms?
Wow, what a blood bath! I think we'll have to go to the dental records to identify the remains of lil' thor.
Imhotep,
If you'd bother to reverse course and explain how my initial query has been answered then perhaps you can carry on about some fictional effect?
One cannot talk about information, knowledge and wisdom, while not mentioning Truth, and still retain credibility. If one's ultimate aim isn't embracing Truth then one can have no capital invested in anything he/she says.
I then explained this phenomenon. A phenomenon where one talks about information, knowledge and wisdom and doesn't mention Truth. It's a radical autonomist mindset that says I create truth because either god does not exist or god is autonomous and therefore unknowable. It denies the necessity of a knowable God in giving meaning to things such as information, knowledge and wisdom.
I don't see anything in Black Diaspora responses that say her/his highest principle is embracing the Truth. And if this is the case, then how do we know if anything he/she says is truthful or merely his/her liberal preference of the day?
Don't feed the trolls!
Big Man,
You are right. Wisdom is hard to come by and I often feel like a fool even though other times I think I know every dang thing. Sometimes it is easier to understand things in your head and not your heart so even though you intellectually understand some wisdom it may not be in you entirely and you may not feel on it and act on it. That has been me lately all over, I know better but do it anyway.
As for it being easier to be an "expert" back in the day, I suppose that when you have a smaller body of knowledge that needs to be understood it is easier to become well-versed in it even if you have to hunt for the information but when you have too much information for one person to understand in a lifetime on a variety of topics unless plan to soley or mostly focus on a few things it is hard to become an expert. Shoot you can have a PhD in a discipline and though you vaguely understand the tennents of most aspects of the discipline you are an expert in one thing, like you are an MD and understand most medicine as a whole but you mainly focus on ear nose and throat or dermatology and even if you are a "gp" when something is too much you send people to an expert. The more you have to know to be an expert the harder it is to be one, if that makes sense.
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
@Thordaddy: "I don't see anything in Black Diaspora responses that say her/his highest principle is embracing the Truth."
Life is Truth. Truth is Life. Is that principled enough, absolute enough, ultimate enough, all-inclusive enough?
And you still haven't dealt with my other assertions. Why, then, would I give you more grist for your mill.
And since you're such an embracer of Truth, tell me, what to your intellect, is Truth?
If you're evasive, or ambiguous, I won't be impressed.
You're hoping to call me a relativist, so that you can justify your attack against liberals.
You see, I'm not an absolutist or a relativist, I'm both, at the same time, all at once, without contradiction, or ambiguity.
And if you're living in this realm, you're sometimes one, and sometimes the other. If that were not the case, you'd allow me to take your life without so much as a wince, or an objection.
You've got to bring more than your current meager offering. Deacon Blue's prediction is slowly coming to past, as well as my assurance that my relativistic patience is not absolute, nor infinite.
I'm glad certian folks found this post so interesting.
Hope everybody had a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
--You see, I'm not an absolutist or a relativist, I'm both, at the same time, all at once, without contradiction, or ambiguity. --Black Diaspora
You're a radical autonomist. See if you can wrap your head around YOUR OWN self-refuting existence?
As for Truth, it starts with a very simple assertion. The universe and all that's in it was created by God. This Absolute Necessity is where all information, knowledge and wisdom must emanate.
"You're a radical autonomist. See if you can wrap your head around YOUR OWN self-refuting existence?"
Here's a self-refuting utterance: You're not yourself.
And you're funny as all out. I knew you'd use my words as an opportunity to pounce, and you didn't fail.
If I'm a "radical autonomist" (whatever the hell that means), what in God's name are you?
Here's what I think: "You can't handle the Truth."
"The universe and all that's in it was created by God."
Wrong!
The universe and all that's in it IS God. The creature and the creator are one.
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."
As "offspring," we exist, not outside the whole, but within the whole. If we were created apart from God, outside of God, it wouldn't be possible to have our being, or life in Him.
There's nothing greater than all.
I postulate the following: You don't know the nature of your own existence, nor the nature of God.
"This Absolute Necessity is where all information, knowledge and wisdom must emanate."
Who's carping but you. Living and having our being in Him, from where else could "all information, knowledge and wisdom" come?
Are you suggesting that some information is in error, that some knowledge is lacking, and that some wisdom is, paradoxically, folly?
If so, from whence did it come, if we're living and having our being in Him?
Are you suggesting, further, that error, lack, and folly can occur in Him?
Are you suggesting, in addition, that God's offspring are not the image and likeness of the Father-Mother, that, somehow, God is perfect, but God's offspring were created--brought into existence--and given attributes that are missing from within the source, or that His offspring were able to arrogate to themselves attributes, natures, or what have you, that aren't in the whole?
It further suggests that God's offspring can have an existence outside of the perfection that is Him.
This notion that God can err. This notion that God can make mistakes. This notion that God's offspring, his image and likeness, can be seduced by error, falsity, or lies, reduces the supremacy of his offspring, and relegates them to nothing more than weak and fallible creatures.
I respect the inerrancy, supremacy, and omnipotence of God too much to support such a position. God doesn't make mistakes, and neither does His offspring.
If you're making mistakes, or erring, perhaps you're not the image and likeness of God. Have you given that some thought?
But, then, I digress.
Now, I'll return to you the challenge you posed: "you need to give a more succinct explanation of what that means?: [The universe and all that's in it was created by God.] What are your assertions? What are your axioms?"
Black Diaspora,
I disagree that our entire reality IS supernatural. What would that mean other than some having radically superior abilities to another? Such a disposition fits well within the agenda of a radical autonomist.
It goes like this. Clearly, the implication of your understanding is that man may reach a god-like pinnacle. In fact, man is already god-like and god-like men/women can do anything. Being able to do anything unimpeded is the essence of radical autonomy.
Are there limits on what Black Diaspora may do?
Thordaddy is defined by his restraint. Every time I restrain myself I get a sense of Free Will. How is this derived? Is God restraining Himself within me and I feel His Will...? Or is thordaddy being compelled by Him via a universe full of empirical evidence? Is there really not a seperation between natural and supernatural? Is this not a very small minority view?
What is the consequence of the all-supernatural realm?
One
"I disagree that our entire reality IS supernatural."
Then you disagree with your own Bible. What part of "in Him" is not "in Him"?
If you wish to reconcile this dilemma, you've got some real work ahead of you, some real thinking to do.
You can't just dismiss it by saying you "disagree," or by yielding to your favorite disposition, which is to call anyone you don't understand a "radical autonomist."
It's mentally lazy, and intellectually dishonest.
"What would that mean other than some having radically superior abilities to another?"
Flawed thinking.
Who are the some? You're "in Him." What goes on "in Him" is under His control, His divine providence.
If you're "in Him," then there's only Him. What does that say about autonomy, and free will. It appears that only Him, God, possesses free will, and if, as you propose, "radical atonomist[s]" exist, it follows, then, that God, Himself, must be equally guilty of it.
God the "radical atonomist." If it's good enough for God, it must be good enough for His image and likeness, wouldn't you say?
"Being able to do anything unimpeded is the essence of radical autonomy."
Balderdash!
You're still calling God a "radical autonomist," since, by definition, He's "able to do anything unimpeded...."
Or would you "restrict" God, He that is infinite, the Alpha and the Omega, the all-in-all.
You need to rethink your position.
"Are there limits on what Black Diaspora may do?"
Are you saying I'm not the image and likeness of God? Are you saying I'm God's image and likeness in some things, in some areas of my life, but not in others? Can you restrict, or limit God?
Your answer to these questions should satisfy your query.
"Thordaddy is defined by his restraint. Every time I restrain myself I get a sense of Free Will."
Are you saying that God is defined by His restraints? Are you saying that "free will" can only be experienced as a restraint, and not by an unfettered existence..
Would you limit God?
Perhaps not, just His image and likeness. I don't think that God would be pleased with such an outcome--that is, permitting Him an unfettered existence, but not His image and likeness.
What kind of God would you have me believe in, one that's infinite, but restrictive, or one that infinite and not restrictive.
God can't operate outside of His nature, that would be infinitely "unnatural."
Two
"Is God restraining Himself within me and I feel His Will...? Or is thordaddy being compelled by Him via a universe full of empirical evidence?"
Come now, don't limit God just so that you might reconcile the irreconcilable. That which is infinite can't subject Himself to restraints. What kind of God would He be?
If you're "in Him" there can be no other will but His. Were it otherwise, chaos would reign, and God would be less than the Alpha and the Omega, subject to the competing wills of His offspring, His image and likeness.
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord...."
Here's a conundrum, God neither restricts Himself nor His image and likeness, not in the expression of His will and actions, nor that of His image and likeness. And God's will is always being done.
There are no competing wills.
For God to limit His will, God must first become less than God, a self-evident impossibility, wouldn't you say?
"Is there really not a seperation between natural and supernatural? Is this not a very small minority view?"
To say that a view is "small" or held by a "minority," is not to say that it is wrong.
Once it was probably the minority view that the earth was round, and not flat. It didn't make flat the reality, and roundness wrong.
It merely pointed out the depths of ignorance that beset humankind at a certain point in time, and history.
I contend: humankind are faced with many views that are held by the minority, but that doesn't make the minority wrong.
"What is the consequence of the all-supernatural realm?"
You are referring to the "in Him" realm, right?
You tell me! What is the consequence?
Jesus, I recall, healed the sick, raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind, fed the five thousand with a few fish, and a few loaves, changed water to wine, stilled the winds and waves, among many other wonders.
He didn't seem the least bit limited, wouldn't you say?
What world did Jesus occupy, a natural one, or a supernatural one?
As God's image and likeness, boy didn't He show us a thing or two?
Black Diaspora,
You're saying a lot, but I'm not quite sure what. My first principles are clear.
I believe in God as Absolute Truth. I do this on faith understanding that in his world I can never know the Truth completely. This limitation is also evidenced by science. Therefore, recognizing this limitation on knowing the entire Truth, I nonetheless must decide whether God is Absolute Truth (without having ALL the evidence in hand) or whether not being able to know the entire truth or it's opposite, knowing the entire truth, means god does not exist?
The radical autonomist falls in the latter category as both a believer in an ultimately unknowable god or a disbeliever. Yet, both positions serve the same ends. They effectively deny God as Absolute Truth. Truth being something we can know by empirical evidence. They do this in order to maximize their autonomy and deny their limitations.
I see this in your diaspora, Black Diaspora.
Thordaddy said...
"Black Diaspora,
"You're saying a lot, but I'm not quite sure what. My first principles are clear."
My friend you're cornered and you know it. Answer the question?
"What world did Jesus occupy, a natural one, or a supernatural one?"
Don't weasel: answer this one as well:
"You're still calling God a "radical autonomist," since, by definition, He's "able to do anything unimpeded....
"Or would you "restrict" God, He that is infinite, the Alpha and the Omega, the all-in-all."
According to your own confession,
your priciples aren't clear, and fully substantiated:
"I believe in God as Absolute Truth. I do this on faith understanding that in his world I can never know the Truth completely."
How can you formulate principles around ignorance? You readily admit that "in his world [you] can never know the Truth completely."
Yet, you're willing to bash me, as well as others, by calling me, and them, "radical autonomists." You do this fully knowing that your supposed "principles" are wanting, and are based on faith, not reason, nor knowledge.
That, my friend, makes you a fraud.
Further, your reasoning is becoming increasingly muddled:
"Therefore, recognizing this limitation on knowing the entire Truth, I nonetheless must decide whether God is Absolute Truth (without having ALL the evidence in hand) or whether not being able to know the entire truth or it's opposite, knowing the entire truth, means god does not exist?"
You freely admit that you don't know the "entire Truth," don't know whether or not God is "Absolute Truth," without it being fully evident, bringing into question God's existence, and, on the basis of this, you feel free to formulate principles to guide your life, and to judge others around you.
That, my friend, is chutzpah of the first order.
"The radical autonomist falls in the latter category as both a believer in an ultimately unknowable god or a disbeliever. Yet, both positions serve the same ends."
Are you now admitting that you're, yourself, a "radical autonomist"? It certainly appears that way: You're a "believer in an ultimately unknowable god," but you somehow distance yourself by saying that you believe in "Absolute Truth," but some others do not, and those others you dub, "radical autonomists."
So the only difference between you and the others is that you believe in "Absolute Truth," and they do not, although substantiation for your position, "empirical evidence," is incomplete, and can lead to either the existence of God, or not.
"They effectively deny God as Absolute Truth. Truth being something we can know by empirical evidence."
Good luck with that!
God is Spirit. You can't know spirit empirically, certainly not by using the scientific method.
Which leaves you touting principles without a factual foundation, based on faith, and incomplete evidence.
I'd say that's nervy. I declare then: You're as much a "radical autonomists," as those you accuse of this shortcoming, building your house, not on the rock of certainty, but on the sand of doubt, and insufficient evidence.
"They do this in order to maximize their autonomy and deny their limitations."
Have you read anything I've written here?
You suggest that this is a bad thing, to be autonomous, and limitless.
God is autonomous, and limitless. His offspring, His image and likeness, are autonomous and limitless, otherwise His offspring would not be true to the original.
Black Diaspora,
God is not a radical autonomist. His Creation is indisputable evidence of this as all who create by the proper order of things have a responsibility for their creation. Responsibility is an impediment to radical autonomy. Creation is antithetical to the radical autonomist. Now, you might claim that not being a radical autonomist limits God, but in reality it limits you and so that's why as a radical autonomist you assert God to be autonomous. You worship an autonomous god because he leaves you unimpeded. You may claim that God is Truth and False, Right and Wrong and Good and Evil. This would be an autonomous god that was unlimited. The problem of course is that no one but the radical autonomist will argue that not being False, Wrong and Evil constituted a limitation on one's omnipotence and supremacy.
Secondly, the fact is clear that we as humans have an incomplete understanding of the universe, why it's here and why we are here to think about such things. These questions lie outside of science and so other disciplines must take up these questions. Yet, even with this understanding of our limited grasp of the Truth, we must assume that Truth Exists. If it does not or it is not attainable as the atheist and liberal theist claim respectively then this is equivalent to saying Truth does not exist or only exists relatively. Both are self-evident falsehoods and yet this is the essence of the radical autonomist. One seeking his True self by denying any truthful impediments.
"He will talk in circles and run you around until you are dizzy, but you will never get any concession from him on any point, no matter how logically you present it." Deacon Blue
"I hear you.
"If it comes to that, I'll cease and desist. By that time, I will have left enough raw material behind for those who wish it, to draw their own conclusion on this matter.
"My purpose in countering Thordaddy's post was to offer readers of this blog an alternative view." BD
We have reached an impenetrable barrier: You have nothing to offer me, and you've rejected what I have to offer.
"One seeking his True self by denying any truthful impediments."
The statement above sums up pretty much your confused stance and ideology:
Truth can have no "impediments," and still be Truth. Truth, like God, is infinite.
If one has a "True self," what's the point in seeking it? Why seek what you already have?
Black Diaspora,
Does Absolute Truth exist or not?
If it does, can you attain it?
If not, what in the world are you trying to say?
"Does Absolute Truth exist or not?
If it does, can you attain it?"
You use words as snares. Okay, I'll bite one more time.
That which you seek, you are. You are absolute Truth. There's no Truth outside of you. You're not going to find it in materiality, because, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing...."
Jesus didn't say God is Truth, although he could have correctly. He stated it thusly: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."
As you define it, Jesus sounds pretty much like a "radical autonomist," wouldn't you say?
Until you can say those words, and mean it, absolute Truth will always elude you.
Black Diaspora,
If you can substantiate Jesus teaching His followers to embrace the false then your claim that He was a radical autonomist would stand. Of course, you cannot do such a thing. Again, there is nothing RADICAL about teaching and embracing Truth. It is radical to teach and embrace the false. Radical autonomists are those that teach and embrace the false. Namely, radical autonomists teach and embrace a radically autonomous god. This is their false preaching.
Black Diaspora,
It seems as if you reached the limit inherent in playing devil's advocate. At some point all devil's advocates confront that which they can't falsify. They must then make a particular choice. Do I embrace what is by my own self-evident limitation the Truth or do I voluntarily LIMIT myself
to the role of devil's advocate? Either way, you ultimately "limit" yourself to embracing the Truth or embracing the false. To claim that they either represent the same thing or that the latter represents God-ordained free will is nothing other than the "faith" of the radical autonomist.
Post a Comment