Upgrading to Speech

Here it is, Radical Traditions' first audio presentation. Rejoice!




Direct Link

Smashing the Universe

I was at Academy Northwest yesterday reading the little notes that students leave under the plastic see-through mats on the table. One of them sparked my interest. It's a hold out from Sophie's World, an introduction to philosophy that the class is studying. It asked, "What is reality? What if all of this is a dream?" I felt compelled to answer.

First, what difference does it make? There is no way to prove, really, that we are not in our own or in someone else's dream. There is also no real way to prove that we are. Especially in light of this, there is no reason to not live as we ought now. It doesn't make a difference to our world whether or not it exists in a very real sense. There are still pragmatic issues to confront, such as the monthly bills, and there are still philosophical truths to debate, such as morality. The true nature of reality is irrelevant to life and how we ought to live in it.

Second, since empirical proof is lacking about the nature of reality, we ought to look for the system of belief that most adequately and consistently explains the nature of things around – and within – us. Now certainly, a person may claim that we are all the figment of his imagination, and we have no immediate way to disprove him. However, G.K. Chesterton put together an excellent rebuttal. He said:

"Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions."

Basically, the idea that we are in some dream state may be consistent with all the evidence, but fails to explain the large things in a large enough way to truly placate the mind and soul. So, our search must be for a logically consistent yet truly all-encompassing belief system that explains both the nature of man and the nature of God. Personally, I ascribe to a worldview that not only explains the depravity of man, but also explains how God in His grace and love sought to reconcile the impure with a most Holy God. As a believer in "mere Christianity," I have found that system to be the best explanation as to what is real and what is not.

But the question of how we ought to behave still remains, no matter what philosophy or religion you may ascribe to. How shall we then live? I again turn to Chesterton, who said it most excellently. We have got to "smash the universe." Try as I might, I can't quite put my own words up to rewriting his quote … or significantly cutting it.

"Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination … he is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself." (I've been on an Orthodoxy binge, in case you couldn't tell.)

So, to whichever student wrote that question about the nature of reality and placed it underneath the mat, I admittedly haven't answered your dilemma. But, I do contend that it is irrelevant. The real question is what should we believe and then how shall we act. That is a personal choice … but Christianity provides a big enough answer and a clear enough system that I am compelled to go smash the universe "for the sake of itself."

Are you confused?

Last night I went to a Kitsap County Young Republicans meeting, but sometimes I'm hesitant to tell people about it. Republican and Democrat are two of those magical political words that will immediately turn people on or off. For instance when I was calling to "get out the vote" in the last local election cycle, something blatantly political, I told a caller (quite cheerfully I imagined) that I was "Matt Pitchford from the Kitsap County Republica-." That's about as far as I got, because this random caller proceeded to yell obscenities and slam the phone down. The word "republican" invokes such angst in some people, that I am sometimes loath to actually invoke that word as a descriptive term. This problem is further compounded by the fact that more and more I am becoming disillusioned with the Republican Party itself. ( Spending issues anyone?)

Recently I've been reading a book called "Are you Liberal, Conservative, or Confused?" Through the book's definitions, I'd call myself a conservative. Most of the political tests I've ever taken have placed me in the same place - Conservative. But even the term conservative carries negative connotations to some, of a miserly old man too afraid of change to actually better himself or society. No, conservative does not fully express my political philosophy.

So, what should I call myself? Well, I've been thinking about it, and I've decided to make my own label. I've started calling it - "Christian Libertarianism," although even that isn't a new or novel idea. Now, libertarians are known primarily for their attitude regarding freedom. Libertarians contend that you should do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm other people and that you should do all that you have agreed to do. The distinction between Libertarianism and Christian Libertarianism comes down to morality.

Libertarians say do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others; however, the definition of "harm" and "other people" must be defined by some morality, or else you have many of the problems existent in our society today. Abortion is an issue of defining what constitutes a human being or not. That definition, in a purely libertarian worldview, is a fairly subjective term. Who should have the right to define the human-ness of others? Or we could look to problems with drugs, or sex, or even suicide. These are decidedly moral areas that the libertarian philosophy does not clearly answer.

Libertarianism isn't enough in and of itself. You should be free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm other people and you should agree to do all that you are engaged to do, but you need an added element of morality otherwise the resulting grey areas cause some real dilemmas. So, I call myself a Christian Libertarian because the Christian worldview provides a context to freedom that delineates right and wrong, while allowing the greatest amount of freedom to society and relegates the government to those few services that private individuals cannot provide. While my quest for a unique label certainly wasn't successful, I think I have found one that allows Christian morality to be mixed effectively with my political philosophy. Care to join a new third party?