I must first swear that this blog post was overwhelmingly inspired by a book that I am reading, then after swearing, which is objectively different things in different contexts and to different people, I want to try and make you see and believe in things in a certain way (and I'm not saying that I'm the author of such a determined way, but that I just hope that you see them that way.)
Well...
People quarrel. People do quarrel and disagree all the time. I quarrel. I disagree. A lot. Sometimes for the "right" reasons, but mostly for the "wrong" ones (take the quotes to mean that the words carry their own differences in weight in matters of ethics).
Most of us quarrel (or argue) so that to [just] prove a point, not that [that] point is the right one, but just because the [point] being proven is our point.
But truth is that we cannot universally have the same opinion about everything. We should not. At least in certain instances. This is because (I think) the moment we mutually agree about ALL things, is the very moment we disagree in one way or another with another peoples' agreement elsewhere. I think that we always agree to culture a certain degree of disagreement.
We should quarrel (methinks) because we have the right to objectivity - especially the kind of objectivity that peripherys our "rights" and "beliefs." But this is not a [good] reason to why we should incline ourselves towards thinking that we ARE to win ALL arguments all the time. It is not.
Consider this example »
Two men are arguing over whether a given dog should be fed at noon or in the evening. Of course the argument is not about whether the dog should be fed or not - because they both, to a good extend, agree that this dog should be fed - but about whether one's time of feeding, with regard to another's (or to the dog), is the most appropriate, and probably most effective (although such a probability only creeps in later).
Thus such an argument (the one between these two men feeding that dog) is likely to remain unproductive as far as what time of feeding the dog is the most appropriate; but may be useful because it tendons itself somewhere between two views that are mutually beneficial to a hungry dog... but none of the two should want to win because, after all, the dog is being fed.
And so in a related way, when it comes to religious and philosophical contexts, consider the following arguments and possibilities with regard to fulfilling a certain angst in the human population about understanding and worshipping God, but which unlike in the case of the dog, remain hanging on a fence - neither satisfying the origin nor the course »
1. The atheist freely argues that there is no God. He defends it. In fact he arbitrarily feeds on his defense (so to say) and thinks that this is the best way humanity should figure out life (and God). He thinks that he is feeding the dog well, but is he? Well, he is not.
2. The pantheist says that all roads that are belief systems on this earth lead to one unspecified "God" or deity. He too claims to be feeding the same dog, right? But with useless food.
3. The scientologist and other numerous (and actually useless) New Age religions (and belief systems) elevate man above God. They think that man has soared above the galaxies of belief in one deity and have therefore made him the king of deities. Their dog is overfed, isn't it? Yes, but with trash.
4. The gnostic thinks that it is impossible for there to have existed, amongst mortal beings, a touchable and visible God. Yes, and objectively so, he denies the preference for belief in a once-fully-mortal-and-fully-immortal-God. Mmmhuh? I don't think I want to say much about their dog, these ones, because he's gonna end up crippled.
5. The idealist, realist, naturalist, existentialist and secular humanist
are all drunk with belief that the singular plurality of supernatural influence on this earth does not exist, and parallel themselves against God in a rather "queer" manner. Their dog is in trouble because it eats the same food all day long - deficient and facing malnutrition.
6. The traditional man is the clueless but most concerning type. As far as Africa is concerned, because he either is mostly (and falsely) obeying a deity he calls "God" or he is obeying some misconstrued rules within his culture that battle to put him somewhere near a certain [known] God, he makes tough cuisines for his dog, but I guess it is still craving for more - it is never fully satisfied.
7. The Muslim and most Eastern cultures and beliefs run on slippery ground while trying to feed this dog - one path which I prefer not to tread upon today - which has influenced a great percentage of the "Theo-seeking" group of mankind. His dog is the sleepy and sickly one.
The Christian, being the one on the most extreme end - his own end - somehow being puppeted, and somehow puppeting belief (whatever that means), believes in a God who basically gives a book (the Bible) with instructions pointing towards a Savior for all mankind; a Savior who loudly and unreservedly SAYS or rather, PROCLAIMS for all to hear, that He and only He is the way to the only true God, the truth and the life.
The Judeo-Christian view seems to win for me - and I objectively, and also willingly, follow in its footsteps. And not entirely in the Judeo-Christian worldview (that is if it is a worldview at all), but in the Christian belief system, where our dog is well fed, healthy, happy and hopeful...
With the escalating views on religion and pseudo-beliefs, free-thinking has become a modern way of expression, and each one of us wants to have an opinion to put across. What we believe in has become what we live for. We have become so overopinionated that we (most of the time) don't even understand and/or know what we serially defend.
If all the above belief systems argue and quarrel about being objectively right, I might as well call it madness - maybe because quarrels clutter and breed it (madness).
But within such an argument over beliefs, how do we tell who is right and who is wrong? And where do we base our judgement of right and/or wrong? What is the determining factor? Christ? Christianity? The Bible? Not all of us agree.
If all that matters is that the dog should be fed, are we really on the right path? Should we objectively say that this dog (read, desire to serve a purpose and a given deity) will be okay no matter WHO feeds it, HOW it is fed and WHY it is fed? Should we say that we are all objectively right?
Well, philosophy teaches one law that is important to note: truth cannot exist relatively. It is either absolute or it is not truth. So no matter how "objectively right" we may seem to be in our arguments, only one of us is right. And if we have to apply the laws of logic in such a case, we find that there is no excluded middle in both cases - of feeding a hungry dog and in needing to be subject to a given deity. And no matter how objective we may want our beliefs to be perceived, they all can't be true at the same time. That will be contradictory. We are either feeding the dog with BAD FOOD or we are feeding it with HEALTHY FOOD. Period. No middle ground. It is either one of us is feeding the dog right and the rest are just a useless lot or nothing else.
Our belief systems point us in a certain direction and we defend what we believe because we have come to believe that it is true, regardless of whether we are right or not. Yeah, we have the freedom for argument and quarrel through debate, reason and the so-called dialectics, but truth cannot be changed by mere objectivity. It cannot be changed by "how we, on our own, view the world around us" but rather, by understanding and accepting it as it really is.
Truth is a substance of infallibility, and whether our "philosophies" accept it or not, we should consider once again understanding why Christ Jesus said, "I am the way, THE TRUTH and the life..." (John 14:6), and maybe jump over from "mere objectivity" to "What He said is the TRUTH."
Bonface Morris.
