Firmly Planted In Mid-Air

Many will say my open-mindedness leaves me with no absolute moral foundation in which to approach life. Noted theologian and writer Ravi Zacharias cleverly expresses this by saying that those who lack an absolute moral foundation have their feet firmly planted in mid-air. This brilliant cliché is more or less true but is this necessarily a bad place to be?

Without this absolute moral foundation, it is thought, one is forever precluded from knowing the fine line between what is right and what is wrong. This will then systematically lead to what is commonly perceived as perverse and wicked behavior. It can lead to this type of behavior but it can also lead to a very open and understanding person who feels no need to judge and criticize others who do or believe seemingly peculiar things.

Additionally, many require an absolute foundation only because they need to “know” they are right in order to feel fulfilled. This is a form of control motivated by nothing more than ego. I don't need to be in control of “truth”. I can just be who I am without such control.

Perhaps some are suspicious of their own intentions and as such need a firm foundation in “truth” lest their real self might come out and wreak havoc on themselves and worse, others. Furthermore, I presume many have been indoctrinated with the belief that one must have a worldview based on absolutes to have any semblance of peace and fulfillment. This then commonly becomes self-fulfilled prophesy.

Alas, there is a crippling flaw with any sort of "absolute" moral foundation: contradictions inevitably ensue. This is not the fault of the person per se, rather it is the fault of this system of thinking. It doesn't work. Different absolutes are clearly in opposition to one another but are believed wholeheartedly nonetheless. Doublethink as George Orwell so wisely termed this.

In addition, many absolutes are arbitrarily embraced on a preferential basis. At this point, absolutes are merely relatively absolute. Which means they are not absolute. Are they relative? Certainly not, for if they are relative, they could simultaneously be absolute.

I have reflected extensively on the absolute/relative dichotomy and have comfortably concluded it to be an irreconcilable paradox*. On the other hand, not establishing an absolute foundation does not create these contradictions but is of course replete with its own set of problems. Everything pertaining to the morality and well being of societies is a trade-off and therefore nothing can ever be absolute.


*Please see a couple of my writings on a more thorough examination of this paradox:

The Duality Of Relativism/Absolutism

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/08/duality-of-relativismabsolutism.html

The Shortcoming Of Absolutes
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/shortcoming-of-absolutes.html

The Elusiveness Of Truth

If truth is what works, why might this be? Does its working stem solely from its truth? Or might its working be mere happenstance? Could something somewhat different work just as well? Or possibly something completely different?

It seems many use ad hoc explanations to justify any given outcome. For example, one may say his averting risk led to prosperity in one case whereas in another, his embracing risk led to prosperity. It seems basing truth solely on what works is essentially a form of control, or at least an attempt to control. When we claim a truth based on what seems to work, it gives us a feeling of control, as if we can predict future events based on this truth.

But many if not most of our explanations are merely ad hoc, meaning they are not helpful in explaining anything beyond a particular event. It puzzles me that many of the devoutly religious claim God upholds the righteous (when wonderful things befall them) but then just as surely claim these righteous are not immune to catastrophe (when untold tragedy strikes them).

Another similar example is when overly-learned analysts go on to explain why the stock market did this or that on a given day. Then, on a different day, the stock market behaves in an essentially contrary fashion yet for apparently similar reason(s). Or just the same, the stock market behaves in a similar fashion yet for apparently contrary reason(s). For example, the stock market plunged because interest rates are falling preceding what many expect will be a prolonged contraction in the economy! Then on another day (during what is supposedly an economic contraction), with interest rates falling, this makes stocks more attractive hence there is a surge in the stock market!

Might this “delusion” simply be analysts' ploy to justify getting paid handsomely for being no better a predictor of the future than a homeless man off the streets of Philadelphia? (Think Trading Places with Eddie Murphy) 

Though we may say “truth is what works”, this does not mean any number of other solutions not thought to be truth might work just the same, perhaps even better.

The Search For God

In my view, the search for God is becoming more aware of our individual as well as our collective identity as human beings.

If self identity is one's life pursuit, there is less need, perhaps no need, to seek identity through things outside self. Things such as impressing others with accomplishments, self-righteous acts, flaunting wealth, physical appearance, ideology and beliefs, etc. What more likely than not happens when we pursue identity through these “superficialities”? We strive so tenaciously to accumulate these “superficialities” thereby making it paramount to subvert our decency and sensitivity toward others if it gets in the way of these pursuits, which eventually it always does. This we might call “sin”.

In addition, when seeking awareness of humanity's identity, it is obvious that we are all different genetically and culturally. Imagine the human body as humanity. Each cell is an individual human being. Would not a cell in the liver have a totally different perspective on things (morally, perhaps?) than a cell in the brain? Yet the cell in the liver is absolutely convinced that it has the “right” perspective on things. If the cell in the brain adopted the liver cell's perspective on things, would it be able to do its job properly? Of course not, because it is a brain cell, not a liver cell.

Some organisms engage in altruism whereas others engage in infanticide but ultimately whether we view these behaviors as good or bad is irrelevant. What is relevant is that these distinct behaviors seem to have facilitated the survival and prosperity of each.

Have Video Games Truly Progressed?

The more realistic video games become, paradoxically the less realistic they become. I think this is due to the fact that as realism is approached, the standard for what is deemed realistic exponentially increases beyond reach.

For instance, when computer football games initially incorporated voice announcers like John Madden, it was the coolest thing because it was so realistic! But with each successive iteration, it becomes more and more obvious it is not so realistic.

As an example, I love doing really stupid things to expose the sheer absurdity of the supposed “professional commentary”. Let's say I'm playing baseball and pitch not even remotely close to the plate on a 3 and 2 count. Playing offense as well, I swing at it deliberately to strike out. You know what the announcer says with reckless abandon? “That was the perfect pitch in this situation!” HUH? I do not claim to be a baseball maven but I seriously doubt that was the perfect pitch in any situation.

Initially, nobody cared or even noticed that the commentary was mostly inane babble as it was so realistic there was any! But today we have a much more demanding standard as to what constitutes realism and, as such, we are really not getting more realistic.

Will computers ever be able to faithfully recreate human behavior and faces and other almost infinitely complicated things? Maybe, maybe not?

A Reflection On Morals

Need God even exist for moral precepts to have intrinsic meaning and value?

If one finds morality irrelevant without God, he is actually making a scathing indictment of His moral precepts. How so? The implication of morality only being relevant if God exists necessarily implies that morality is merely arbitrary in the sense that it can in principle only be good because God deems it such. But if it is only arbitrarily good and not intrinsically good, how does this make God good?

Whether God exists and whether morality ultimately comes from Him, I think the overarching importance of morality is not for the sake of making God happy but rather is ostensibly for us in order to have more fulfilled and peaceful lives free of unnecessary drama!

It puzzles me that many implicitly seem apt to believe God's precepts are nothing but obstructions to their happiness but that in the end, their obedience (translation: suffering) to said precepts will open up a treasure trove of rewards.

But I think this is silly. I believe the reward is the obedience to said precepts as they are intrinsically meaningful and valuable and as such will lead to fulfillment and peace devoid of needless suffering. Now if one does not agree with my assessment that obedience itself leads to fulfillment and peace, he is making a mockery of God's chosen precepts by either reluctantly following them or simply following them as a means to amass rewards for “stellar” behavior. Of course if he is not following said precepts, he will certainly be judged, will he not?

But I don't believe God would be heard saying, “I'm so happy you are following My moral precepts for the sake of being obedient to Me!” Rather, I think He would say something like the following: “Here are My immutable moral principles which lead to peace and fulfillment. I don't want you to follow them for My sake. Rather, I want you to ponder their value and significance such that you might feel compelled to follow them for your own sake!”

Sleazy Politicians

Why do most politicians seem driven only for the sake of inflating their egos? My guess is that by definition anybody aspiring to be in a such a prominent position will necessarily be ego-driven, at least unconsciously. If this is the case, the politician's primary motivation will be simply to win as opposed to exercising his or her conscience.

I have pondered the ideality of all candidates being genuine as a means to “force” us into picking somebody who is genuine. But if all or at least most politicians are ego-driven and as such are primarily driven not by conscience but by the drive to win, how can we ever expect to get away from sleazy politicians?

At this point, we must realize and accept the ego as both a blessing and a curse. I appreciate the fact that there are those with big egos who aspire to govern, because alas, I, and many others I suspect, have neither the ambition nor the ego to seek such “high” places. The flip-side of this follows: these politicians, ultimately driven by ego, will be more interested in winning than in exercising their consciences thereby perpetuating this cycle of sleaziness.

We should acknowledge this reality and stop wondering why politicians tend not to act on principles.

The Mystery of Global Warming Solved!

O.K.....finally.....here it is. The much anticipated reconciliation to the contradictory claims of global cooling and global warming. As recently as the 1970's, it was believed we humans were going to be responsible for a cataclysmic global cooling. Of course this never happened. Perhaps it has just not happened yet? Apparently, what they meant to say was that we would actually be the purveyors of a cataclysmic global warming. Oops.....

It is now claimed this error was due to lack of understanding and knowledge. For, you see, we have a much deeper understanding now than we did previously. But how much total understanding and knowledge do we actually have at this point or any other for that matter? Perhaps a mere .5% as opposed to .05%? Certainly this is a huge jump in understanding, by a magnitude of 10 in fact, but is this overall amount of understanding and knowledge anywhere near enough to inspire much confidence in concluding anything?

On the other hand, perhaps our level of understanding is now a much more impressive 90% versus only 10% back then? This would inspire much more confidence in any given conclusion. But how do we know what level of understanding we have at any given time? Furthermore, how do we know our increase in knowledge in any given time period brings us closer to the truth?

It seems oftentimes the greatest feats of knowledge and truth are attained only as a result of making the most egregious of errors! Might the theory of global warming, or any theory for that matter, ultimately be a huge mistake through which all or at least most of our greatest advancements in knowledge and truth stem?

In other words, it seems like the attainment of knowledge and truth is not analogous to a graph of a perfectly straight, ever increasing line. Rather, it is more like a typical stock's price changes over time. Over “long enough” time periods, the cumulative up and down movements in price will reflect a net increase, one sincerely hopes.

The problem with environmental concerns is, who is to say what a “long enough” time period is to assure that the “net price of truth” as it were is increasing? Stocks have been around for a relatively short amount of time. We can then reason fairly confidently that we have a pretty good idea of what “normal” is concerning stock price behavior. But the earth has been “doing its thing” for many billions of years! Who is to say that our increase in knowledge of the environment in the last thirty or fifty years has brought with it a corresponding “net increase in truth”? For the earth, thirty or fifty years is but a fart in the wind!

Maybe our increase in knowledge must meet a certain threshold before our level of truth starts to increase again? One might question that if we were right about global cooling, how did we know about it if we had much less knowledge than now? Serendipity perhaps? In other words, possibly we were right purely by luck or mere happenstance.

Many of the greatest scientific breakthroughs are found this way. For instance, serendipity more than anything else proved to be on Henri Becquerel's side when he discovered radioactivity. If you are interested in how he did this, consult Wikipedia.

Suffice it to say, this ever important and interesting property was happened across largely by sheer dumb luck! Such is the case with many things, perhaps even most.