"The very concept of faith means that what you believe cannot be definitively proven. I wish we could all understand that what is true for me may not be true for you. What is right or wrong for me may not be right or wrong for you. If we could get that through our heads we could put an end to war and all other types of conflict."I understand and appreciate the motivation behind the sentiment being expressed, but I think the conclusion is unnecessarily defeatist. If you really evaluate that statement the writer is saying that all truth is relative and that we should give up on the idea of growing in our knowledge of the truth. In fact, the writer is saying that absolute truth either does not exist, or understanding it is unobtainable.
I think we often get confused between truth and what we believe to be true. Truth is reality. Truth is what actually is, whether anyone believes it or not. My comment on this thread is quoted below:
Objective truth exists and we all live as though we believe that. Not all belief systems are equal. Some are valid, many are not. Having said that, I must respect the right of others to follow their own consciences. Though objective truth exists, none of us have a perfect understanding of it.One more comment about tolerance. Tolerance does not mean I will not express my opinion or try to persuade others. I am convinced that there are many truths that we can know and that many of those truths are vital to our eternal happiness. It would be heartless not to share that knowledge with others. Tolerance does mean that I will not attempt to coerce or harass those who choose to disagree with me.
The answer, however, is not to abandon the search for truth. Rather we should search for it together with forbearance.
Tolerance is not the same as approval. I will let others have their beliefs and practices. That does not mean I have to agree with them or that acknowledge their view as valid.
Most of what we "know" is known via indirect evidence. I "know" about Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, electrons, protons, and special relativity. Yet I don't have much direct evidence (via my own senses) to support any of these facts. Yet, based on the testimony of others, I'm content to believe with such conviction that I call it knowledge. What is more, historians and physicists continue to propose new theories. They present evidence and well reasoned arguments for different explanations of historical or physical phenomena. We don't complain that they should "just agree to disagree" or that they should "recognize that all the theories are equally valid". Yet why do we apply such a different standard to matters of "faith"?
Searching for truth is not a tidy process. It involves testing ideas and sifting through evidence. It means disagreeing with others and arguing different positions. Indeed, rarely do you learn something new by talking to someone who completely agrees with you. Searching for truth involves being honest with yourself and with the evidence. It means being willing to change your mind. Choosing to believe that truth is subjective and in the "eye of the beholder" is the easy way out. It means you don't have to work. It means you don't have to challenge yourself or others.
Many truths are unknowable. But I am convinced the most important ones are knowable. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." (John 8:32)
-PG
Wow Dad, way to cover it! This is pretty much what you said in our very very first class on evidences in the high school class. You're such a good teacher that I still remember it. :+)
ReplyDelete