Monday, 13 May 2013

Can We Fix It? (Yes We Can)

It is encouraging to see that others are prepared to write truthfully about what is happening in the world. James has a style which makes even the worst outlook, palatable. He knows more than he is letting on, Im sure.

It is important to be a part of the solution, rather than a part of the problem that James and others highlight.
Exactly how we are to do this, is debated. One thing that is for sure is that unless we first become acquainted with the details, we may as well be "out to lunch" along with almost everyone else.
To many, the solution, is a form of gnostic, enlightenment. Even the Church has erred into contemplative spirituality, post liberalism, dominionism and a range of other aberrant theology.

In the comments here, Don QS has raised the point that, "there seems to be a pathological aversion to admitting uncertainty". This is healthy. The science world has too many arrogant types.
It is not enough for me. If there is a chance that truth exists, then we are obliged to find out what it is.

I believe that it does exist. OK its down to belief again, but that is a part of our make up as human beings. We don't go out in the car unless we believe that the brakes will stop us safely. We are all believers, its just that we believe in different things.
And then, if we do arrive at the truth, what if it is unpopular, even illegal to declare it to others in society? What if  speaking the truth, meant that you were viewed as posing a threat to those who refuse to open their eyes to witness the modernist impasse, the enemy of society rather than it's liberator.

Given the severity of the struggle, it is understandable that many people are happy to reject the concept that they have a role in this.
So it remains the responibility of those who recognise thier duty to be part of the solution.

"Late adopters" are welcome but dont leave it too late.


  1. " We don't go out in the car unless we believe that the brakes will stop us safely."

    I profoundly disagree. We expect the brakes will stop us safely based on experience and some experimental knowledge, but we know and accept that on rare occasions they may not stop us safely, as we acknowledge that brakes can fail but we choose to accept the level of risk, based on analysis of its likelihood. This is profoundly different from believers in various faiths - they cannot accept that their faiths may be false (or at least most do not).

    And of course truth exists - the problem with believers is they just choose to believe what the truth is, and isn't it interesting they generally seem to choose to believe in benign and ultimately friendly "truths" containing promises of good times ahead, rather than harsh truths that may not care on bit about them?

    1. Belief is experiential. It requires logic too. I personally would love to believe in fairies (even though some would claim that I do)
      There is also a level of risk in believing. A good gambler would fancy the odds of believing in the hereafter.
      Truth does exist but there is an element that would disagree with the concept of absolute truth, preferring relativism instead.
      Even though you may believe in your truth with all your heart, it does not make it true, even to you. Of course it could be true as well. It depends what it is you believe in. Phew.

  2. And, re "If there is a chance that truth exists, then we are obliged to find out what it is."

    Well of course we are. That is what scientific enquiry does, when properly conducted (which is far from always the case). But any search for the truth should not be guided by what we hope the truth will be, or at least it should be undertaken with a willingness to accept what we find rather than moulding it to what we would like to find. You are not seeking the truth unless you start out by being prepared to find that everything you believe in and everything you hope is true may turn out to be wrong.

  3. That is integrity Andrew. I should hope to apply the same standards myself.