Presuppositions and Faith

I propose a rough overview of a philosophy which I espouse to. I don't want to say that I made it up. By I have never heard or read it in the way I am about to say it before. I know deep down that it's not as original as I would like to think. I do not think that it is complete or all encompassing... yet. Here it is.

All knowledge is founded on a presupposition. I define presupposition as; "a belief held to be foundational, and true in the deepest sense of the word. A presupposition is unverifiable by a rational or empirical evidence. It is accepted a priori". It is expected however that logic and reason carry the presupposition to it's ethical conclusions. Ethics is the end of knowledge.
Paradoxically, since all presuppositions are unverifiable, no philosophy can be discredited on the whole. A foundation upon abstract ideals cannot be shown to be faulty by abstract arguments. It can only be proved to faulty when the storms come. It can be called out on logical insconsistencies, but this does not serve to take down the structure. It may only remove a brick. This brick and foundation illustration is not perfect. With a house if you remove the right single brick you may tear down the house. I am not assuming that all bricks are of equal importance. To be true I think of logic constricted to a line, not consisting as a structure. Therefore, the presupposition is maintained. All presuppositions are unverifiable, and by that truth, also incapable of being proved faulty except by eschatology.
This explains, but does not resolve conflict. All philsophies exist to explain. Most exist to resolve. Some make no such distinctions between the two; the explanations are the resolutions.
Objectivity is subject to mystery.
My personal presupposition leads to a complicated ethic in the particulars. But on the whole, I have concluded, based on my philosophical presupposition, that all humans are brothers and sisters who must be served, cared for, and protected. That some people are too selfish to acknowledge this is God's problem. All will be made right. And the foundation of Jesus Christ will prove itself to be a solid foundation.

The Burden of Proof

Who's court is the "burden ball" in? Is it in the court of pro or con homosexuality? In other words, is it up to the anti-homosexuality club to prove the immorality of homosexuality , or is it up to the pro homosexuality club to prove the amorality, if not the morality of homosexuality? Is it right for me to say that the ball is in the middle of the court; that both sides must determine to build their own case, to understand the objections of the other side and to deal with them. In order for there to be progress in this, neither side can be dismissed out of hand. The pro-homosexuality cat must not dismiss the anti-homosexuality position as too religiously motivated to be considered. The anti-homosexuality dog must not dismiss the pro homosexuality position as outside of biblical teaching, as if that seals the deal. I am assuming that anti-homosexuality dogs generally disagree with pro homosexuality cats because of their firm beliefs in the literalness of the Bible. Likewise, I am assuming that the cats generally oppose the dogs because of their presuppositoins about reason and it's foundation, assuming that belief in Scripture as authoritative is unreasonable. So with these upcoming discussions, and forgoing debates, I want to show why "the bible says so" is a frivolous way to argue against homosexualiy. But I also would like to esatblish that a biblical worldview is indeed reasonable. Of course, this would take volumes. A volumous work of this magnitude, I am of course not prepared to take on, but I believe that if I can clearly set up what I see as the true battleground of this debate, then true progress can be made. With that said, I do not seek to actually establish anything in the strictest sense of the word establish in the upcoming posts. In short, if one side is yelling; "Homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so!" and the other side retorts with a shout; "The Bible is full of contradictions and untrustworthy", then this is a debate destined to be debating's version of Vietnam, with the pro homosexuality cats winning by default.

In my next post, I will try to articulate and define a "biblical worldview". From there I will attempt to argue that a biblical worldview is both unscientific, yet reasonable enough that it cannot be flippantly tossed aside as it seems it often is. I will then discuss the passages that discuss homosexuality and see if we can come up with a reason why the biblical authors opposed it.

In the post after that I will play devil's advocate, and attempt to dismantle the biblical worldview as articulated in the previous post. And establish a position that morality cannot be based upon ancient writings.

My hope is that this exercise will show clearly the debate battleground, and also that there cannot be a clear winner, if the debaters are equal in skill. The only way to change your mind, no matter which side you're on, is to change your presuppositions. At this point the only reasonable thing to do is to actively love your opponent, or change your mind. The most unreasonable thing to do is to actively oppose and ostracize your fellow man. Christians, this is unbecoming of your leader, whose ways you follow, who spent time with prostitutes, and ate with traitors. Homosexuals, we Christians in our ongoing struggle with Scripture and how it affects our lives, reserve the right to be wrong, but also if we become convinced that your lifestyle is sinful, reserve the right to respectfully side with truth, which is not the same thing as opposing you. We are on your side. You don't have to believe it. I speak for real Christians, not the bigots and ignorant who are always hijacking the name.

Can we talk about something?

Why is it that logic, rationality, respect, dignity, and objectivity seem to go right out the window when people try to discuss certain topics? In particular, I'm thinking of the topic of homosexuality. I think that this is the case because the two parties involved both believe the opinions that they are holding are moral imperatives. One party thinking homosexuality is wrong, the other thinking that if you think it's wrong you're on par with racists. This is an oversimplification, but it serves to the get the train rolling. But people can change the moral imperatives can't they? Shouldn't they at least be open to it, I mean we're talking about morals? I'm willing to be wrong, but I won't concede to utter subjectivity, sensationalism, and sentimentality. I will listen to anybody who's willing to work through an issue with honesty, and respect. But as soon as those boundaries are crossed it's not a discussion worth having, but it does need to happen, that is the discussion. Let us listen to what each other is trying to say, and if we cannot agree, let us above all love one another. I will be writing more about this topic, offering by own opinions. I hope we can get somewhere.

Doobie Doobie Doo

Does anyone remember the commercial from the nineties with this penguin who had Frank Sinatra's voice and said "doobie, and doobie, doo"? Actually the creepy little penguin sang it. It was a promotion for the Stanley Cup Finals in hockey. And it was infectious. I remember singing it, against my will everyday all day. I had a love hate relationship with that little penguin. He was everywhere. He went to hockey games. He rode in caravans. He bought plane tickets, all with only two words to his vocabulary, that is if doobie and doo are words.

Homestar

Homestarrunner.com is saweet. Everyone says that there the first one to see the site, but everyone is lying. You did not introduce this site to the world. It introduced itself. It is the perfect commentary on Generation X with constantly genius references to even pre Gen X Americana. They are not paying me. I promise. I just thought of this out of nowwhere and thought it might be a worthy post subject.

Sometimes you're not allowed to have an opinion. This is freeing. Really. Sometimes people have opinions about things that don't require opinions. Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're wrong. (I am talking to myself, and its actually quite therapeutic) But I still think its true. I have learned that the wise person is able to discern the difference between things that warrant an opinion and things that do not. I have learned that the wise person is not afraid to be wrong. But I have also learned that the wise person is not afraid to speak out when he knows he's right. Some people in this postmodern generation aren't as afraid of being wrong as they are of being right. Actually it may be the case that we are so afraid of being wrong, we postulate a universal principle of relativity so that we can never be wrong.

Also just because logic is useful, doesn't mean that it's the key to all truth. It's more like a key to material truth. And do not mistake "material" for "natural".

We ought not to be so afraid of personal contradictions. There is a difference between having personal contradictions and being a hypocrite. Some contradictions are harmless and some are not. The ones that you are aware of that are harmful need to be taken care lest they become even more harmful. But the other side of the coin is that some of us spend too much time trying to be consistent. At the end of the day we're all walking contradictions, and we're all too focused on ourselves. So wisdom is kind of this balancing act between not being contradictory and accepting yourself for who you are. This is why Jesus says, "Don't judge lest you be judged yourself." We all condemn ourselves every time we condemn someone else. Let's just let it go. Nobody's perfect.

Super Bowl Thoughts

The Pittsburgh Steelers have been to 7 Super Bowls. They have won 6. If this statement was less appalling, and less fascinating it could be critisized for being as sickening a display of negating redundancy as every public comment that John Madden has ever made. (I kinda like being wordy) Half of the league has never even won 1 Super Bowl, and 5 teams have never even been to the big show. These fans are spoiled. Unless they are hardcore Pirates fans, they know very little of the misery many longsuffering sports fans across the country feel. But I highly doubt that even a tenth of Steelers nation are Pirates fans. This doesn't seem fair. Where is the karma?

What was the deal with the commercials last night? If that wasn't a sign of the state of the economy, I don't know what was. How many soft porn godaddy.com commericials can they show? And the absolute lack of funny beer commercials made me a little uncomfortable. I am totally used to funny beer commercials. Bruce was Bruce if Bruce was old, but still awesome, if you're being objective. If you're living on emotion (like me) Bruce is painfully melodramtic, and ridiculously overrated, but entertaining, just like LOST and American Idol.

I realize that in one way, because it was the winning touchdown, that Santonio Holmes catch was worthy of winning him the MVP, but wasn't it obvious that James Harrison's 100 yard pick six was the difference in the whole game? My man almost died. Did you see him after running over every person in the stadium wearing red and white, and a couple of refs, and 5 squirrels? If the Cardinals get a touchdown there, they win. If they get a field goal, win. If Kurt Warner throws the pick and Harrison runs 99 yards, Cardinals=Lombardi. How is Harrison not the MVP? The only way I can figure is if the voting committee was Lebron James and the MVP nod was reward for the cheesy Lebron chalk thing.

Yes. I like sports. Grow up. At least I don't drink Decaf or listen to Fall Out Boy. Wait...