I Reside In Sanity

I have never found any substantial evidence which would lead me to believe that the universe is an ordered and rational conglomerate. Neither have I been convinced that observable functions within the universe have the capacity to be operationalized, systematized and generalized. I have never heard a rational or logical argument which could convince me that an event or idea is absolutely true. By the nature of these very assertions I cannot ever prove that they are true. Does this mean that I am wrong? Do I contradict myself? Certainly, I am entirely incorrect, but only if I am incorrect. If I am correct though, I am also incorrect by the virtue of my being correct. Are my assertions therefore self-destructive? I will explore the opposite belief, that there is order in the universe and that truth is absolute, to deduce whether my beliefs ring true or are simply the ravings of a mad-man.

Some may argue that I cannot see order and symmetry in the universe because I cannot see all of it. In other words, they would argue that I am not God and therefore cannot see the "big picture". This perspective shares the same superficial contradiction which problematizes my own view. To claim that I cannot see "truth" because I have a limited perspective of reality is in itself a relativistic argument. This is much more a contradiction, hypocrisy and cop-out than my assertion that truth is essentially unknowable. To claim that there is a black and white truth which is God, while simultaneously saying that humans cannot "fully know" that truth is a cop-out. It is like having one's cake and eating it too. To use the more palatable aspect of relative truth while ultimately claiming that one can find the absolute truth upon submission and death is hypocritical and contradictory. This is the basis for the "relationship with Jesus" paradigm so deeply embedded in contemporary evangelical Christianity. It takes the harsh absolutist claims of Christian dogma and softens it by integrating the less problematic aspects of relativity. The core of institutionalized Christian dogma has not changed in 2000 years. The different social articulations of the dogma continue to change and flow with the rest of society, but the central tenet that man is unworthy and must submit to God remains the same. (don't get me wrong, I have fear of God, I just don't think that the God of black and white is God at all, but a devil concocted by power hungry and ignorant people) I have gone down a rabbit hole and must get back on track with my initial thought. My claim that the evangelical Christian articulation of dogma has not change anything from the "turn-or-burn" and physically violent manifestations of Christianity in the past is vital to my argument.

I have been told in numerous arguments and discussions that the Bible says that God is a God of order not of chaos. It is somewhere in the Old Testament, but I don't know the exact reference. My first criticism of that verse is that it is being interpreted shallowly. From a Jewish interpretation it might even say the opposite. I am not an expert of Jewish theology, but I am under the impression that it is permeated with contradictions, paradoxes and reversals. It is only the rational exegetical interpretation of Christian theologians which leaves no room for ambiguity. In the Gospel of John 8:32, Christ is said to have claimed that "...you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free". How could something that is fixed and ultimately knowable set one free? I realize that I could now divert into an entire discussion on which sort of freedom I am referring to. I shall summarize. When I say freedom I do not mean the freedom to do anything, a state commonly and incorrectly referred to as Anarchy, or the much maligned concept of Anarchism. Neither Anarchy/chaos not Anarchism have anything to do with the Hobbesian concept of the violent state of nature. Freedom is a freedom of being bound to everything else, a freedom to coexist peacefully. It is this kind of freedom which sets you free, not the freedom of a sovereign and absolutist God who in His unending mercy will allow us to exist free in his Kingdom. What then does the freedom I am advocating look like?

To be honest I am not sure. I think that it might look an awful lot like the "Kingdom" which Christ refers to. Unfortunately western or perhaps human thought and action is marching further and further away from this Kingdom and freedom. Institutionalized Christianity is perhaps the most advanced in its drive towards a completely materialistic and ungodly articulation of truth. (I mean materialistic in the marxian/fauerbachian sense, not consumerism, although that is a symptom of the denial of a metaphysical reality) A Christian reading this may agree with this last statement, but I assure you, I am here claiming that the assumption of absolute truth is the most materialistic and ungodly perspective that a person can hold. The petty and shallow arguments and sermons which permeate churches are not the things of God, they are worldly things. The things of God are mysterious and can only be grasped by exploring those mysteries, not giving up, leaving it to an unmoving faith in certainty. Uncertainty breeds hunger, it compels motion, it is real faith, real understanding, real Unity with the eternal!

To bring this to a close, what does this exploration tell me about my initial assertions? The more "sane" belief that truth is absolute and is merely incomprehensible to humans leads to nothing but dead, materialistic and religious dogma and tradition, no matter how it is articulated. My "raving nonsense" is advantageous on many fronts. Practically, in interactions with other people, to enter a conflict with the assumption that no one is right leaves people more open to other perspectives. Spiritually, I am not creating any idols of God. I am not claiming any knowledge of God. That does not mean that I do not seek, it merely means that the eternal is not something to be grasped by mortal man. "The assumption of infallibility is the elimination of dialogue" -JS Mill. Certainty necessarily leads to destructive behavior. History shows this! Sociology shows this! Psychology and Philosophy show this! My claim that the only thing I am correct about is that I am incorrect is not a new idea. It's Socratic to the core. It has issued from the lips of every heretic and dissident in history. My assertion that truth is unknowable therefore rings true, but it is also very much like the ravings of a mad-man, for they are one in the same...