You're Grounded
In any other arena, this may be a bad thing. When dealing with philosophical argumentation or a belief system, it's vital. Grounding in this sense is simply the foundation or final authority that a claim or belief rests on. Almost every conversation eventually breaks down in the two major question of "Who says?" and "By what authority?" It's for this reason that it's helpful to be able to identify what a statement is using as it's base and then try to verify whether or not that foundation is solid. Often times, however, many claims end up grounding themselves merely in the personal desires of the person making the claim. In the words of the 17th century Philosopher, Mathematician and Theologian Blaise Pascal "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. 1 ” When dealing with a subjective claim such as the best flavor of ice cream, this sort of personal appeal is completely justified. If, however, the claim is an objective one, such as "Does God exist?" the answer to that question needs to be based on something objective as well. When people try and support an objective claim with a subjective opinion, they end up falling into relativism.
Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
Relativism is very pervasive in our culture today and many people who fall into this trap aren't even aware that they've reached this mindset. It occurs whenever an objective truth is made to be completely dependent on the individual. More commonly it's expressed in the phrase "That may be true for you, but not for me." If the issue being discussed is a metaphysical claim (statements about the nature and substance of things) then the issue is objective in nature and therefore cannot be relegated to the field of personal opinion. They are either true, or false regardless of whether or not you accept them or have even give them consideration. The question "Does God exist" is not a question about whether or not you want there to be a God, or even whether or not you like this particular deity. It's the same as asking "Is there coke in the fridge?" Saying that it may be true for one person, but not another becomes absurd. If one person says that there is a coke in fridge, and another denies this claim, we don't nod our heads in a sagely manner and declare both to be correct. When it comes to a simple matter such as this, we often just go to the fridge and open the door because we no that there either is or isn't a coke. Unfortunately, when dealing in questions that extend beyond our physical world, there is no cosmic fridge that we can quickly look into verify the truthfulness of either particular claim, but this doesn't leave either side off the hook for needing to support their claim. No matter which side of the question you fall on, everyone needs to base their claims on something else. But are all foundations created equally?
A House Built on Sand
The obvious (and correct) answer is "no" as illustrated clearly in Matthew 7:24-27. So what do you base your beliefs on, and is it a solid foundation? When asked to support a worldview, everyone needs to draw a line somewhere at what they use as the ultimate grounding for authority. As previously mentioned, for most people, this becomes the current ideals or standards of the culture. For others it's based on personal feelings or preferences. But these are not foundations of a solid or static nature. Cultures change, and indeed our own emotions hardly ever stop oscillating to some extreme or the other. When you try to base truth on something that shifts and moves along with culture, it becomes utterly meaningless. To illustrate this point, picture yourself traveling down the highway in the back of a bus or car with no windows. When everything you see is moving and changing along with you, then it's hard to judge if you're even moving at all. If, however, you're given a window to see outside the vehicle and look at an object beside the road that's not moving, your own movement and speed becomes immediately obvious. In this respect, the search for meaning or truth should be a search for this fixed point that we can gauge everything else on.
So here we come to the problem that I find cropping up in debates and discussions about God or morality. More often than not, the opposing side will not (or cannot) base a claim on any fixed authority beyond a cultural preference or personal emotion. Some atheists readily acknowledge this fact and succumb to the notion that without an objective authority, there is no such thing as meaning or objectivity in the world. But does this really fit the way we look at the cosmos? It seems to be filled with purpose and design. Our movies and books are filled with stories that seek to discover meaning and fill this earth with more than just material matter. There seems to be a desperate need in everyone to find fulfillment in something beyond themselves, what C.S. Lewis called an "Argument From Desire." 2 Despite this, it seems to me that people are desperately trying to avoid this notion of an objective, fixed point beyond ourselves. The obvious reason is that by doing so, they will have to admit of some authority to which we are accountable. Try as they might, however, people can't avoid this truth. To illustrate this point, take a look at this anecdote from Apologist and Theologian, Ravi Zacharias:
"I remember lecturing at Ohio State University, one of the largest universities in this country. I was minutes away from beginning my lecture, and my host was driving me past a new building called the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts.
He said, “This is America’s first postmodern building.”
I was startled for a moment and I said, “What is a postmodern building?”
He said, “Well, the architect said that he designed this building with no design in mind. When the architect was asked, ‘Why?’ he said, ‘If life itself is capricious, why should our buildings have any design and any meaning?’ So he has pillars that have no purpose. He has stairways that go nowhere. He has a senseless building built and somebody has paid for it.”
I said, “So his argument was that if life has no purpose and design, why should the building have any design?”
He said, “That is correct.”
I said, “Did he do the same with the foundation?”
All of a sudden there was silence.
You see, you and I can fool with the infrastructure as much as we would like, but we dare not fool with the foundation because it will call our bluff in a hurry."
So here we come to the problem that I find cropping up in debates and discussions about God or morality. More often than not, the opposing side will not (or cannot) base a claim on any fixed authority beyond a cultural preference or personal emotion. Some atheists readily acknowledge this fact and succumb to the notion that without an objective authority, there is no such thing as meaning or objectivity in the world. But does this really fit the way we look at the cosmos? It seems to be filled with purpose and design. Our movies and books are filled with stories that seek to discover meaning and fill this earth with more than just material matter. There seems to be a desperate need in everyone to find fulfillment in something beyond themselves, what C.S. Lewis called an "Argument From Desire." 2 Despite this, it seems to me that people are desperately trying to avoid this notion of an objective, fixed point beyond ourselves. The obvious reason is that by doing so, they will have to admit of some authority to which we are accountable. Try as they might, however, people can't avoid this truth. To illustrate this point, take a look at this anecdote from Apologist and Theologian, Ravi Zacharias:
"I remember lecturing at Ohio State University, one of the largest universities in this country. I was minutes away from beginning my lecture, and my host was driving me past a new building called the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts.
He said, “This is America’s first postmodern building.”
I was startled for a moment and I said, “What is a postmodern building?”
He said, “Well, the architect said that he designed this building with no design in mind. When the architect was asked, ‘Why?’ he said, ‘If life itself is capricious, why should our buildings have any design and any meaning?’ So he has pillars that have no purpose. He has stairways that go nowhere. He has a senseless building built and somebody has paid for it.”
I said, “So his argument was that if life has no purpose and design, why should the building have any design?”
He said, “That is correct.”
I said, “Did he do the same with the foundation?”
All of a sudden there was silence.
You see, you and I can fool with the infrastructure as much as we would like, but we dare not fool with the foundation because it will call our bluff in a hurry."
I hope that by now we can agree that there is indeed a solid ground with which everyone needs base the facts on, unfortunately time and space doesn't allow me the chance to expound on what the best foundation may be, so I'll pick that up in the next post (check out the recommended listening for a good idea of where I'm going). In the meantime, keep an eye and an ear out for what people use to answer the questions of "Who says?" and "By what authority?" By seeing what people use as a foundation for their beliefs, it's easier to see whether or not the belief or worldview is solid.
1 - Blaise Pascal - 1623 - 1662
2 - C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
3 - Ravi Zaccharias
Today's Recommendations
Recommended Reading
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, Gregory Koukl and Francis Beckwith
A great book on how moral relativity can quickly fall apart under the weight of it's own claims.
Recommended Listening
Who's You're Authority - Bulletproof Podcast - Bret Kunkle
Podcast comparing some of the world's most popular religions and their claims to authority.
Recommended Research
Fixed Point Foundation
An apologetics ministry that provides debates and articles to equip people with good defenses for their belief. Also, in regards to the topic, I liked the name...
Today's Challenge
Ask someone "Why do you believe what you believe?" Really sit back and try to understand what and where their final authority is. If it's relativistic in nature, don't beat them over the head with it, just ask them some simple questions about whether or not an objective truth can be based on something non-objective.
2 - C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
3 - Ravi Zaccharias
Today's Recommendations
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, Gregory Koukl and Francis Beckwith
A great book on how moral relativity can quickly fall apart under the weight of it's own claims.
Recommended Listening
Who's You're Authority - Bulletproof Podcast - Bret Kunkle
Podcast comparing some of the world's most popular religions and their claims to authority.
Recommended Research
Fixed Point Foundation
An apologetics ministry that provides debates and articles to equip people with good defenses for their belief. Also, in regards to the topic, I liked the name...
Today's Challenge
Ask someone "Why do you believe what you believe?" Really sit back and try to understand what and where their final authority is. If it's relativistic in nature, don't beat them over the head with it, just ask them some simple questions about whether or not an objective truth can be based on something non-objective.
No comments:
Post a Comment