On Matters of Truth...
I was recently asked how i felt about politicians using Christianity as a basis for their decisions. Here is the answer:
"Hmmm...
Well, this deals with the concept of truth.
By logical necessity, there must exist a moral standard, an absolute truth that dictates what is and isn't ethical, and what is right and what is wrong. This necessity is found because two opposing truths cannot be true at the same time. If someone were to say that a rock is immovable, and someone else advances that this wind is irresistible, then there would be a direct contradiction in terms, and thus a logical conundrum, because these two concepts could not feasibly exist at the same time. Hence, someone is right, and someone is wrong. Thus, concluding that there must be an absolute truth, and not many varying, relative truths, everyone, politician or not, must follow this set of truth to be ethical, regardless of any outside opinion and motive. If two opposing concepts of what is ethical arise, then someone is right, and someone is wrong.
When it comes to the Bible, it claims to be THE Truth concerning the nature of the world, God, and ethics, and thus truth. The Bible does not have a way to be relativized, so it claims to be the absolute moral authority for mankind.
Thus, if someone opposes the supposed Truth stated in the Bible, then they are either right, or they are wrong. Remember that a person must follow the truth to be ethical in their decision making. Thus, if the Bible is in fact the truth, to follow it is to be ethical and moral. Reversely, if the Bible is wrong, it would be unethical to follow it.
If, then, a politician is convinced that the Bible is the truth, then to act following the Bible is not unethical, but quite the opposite, and if he were to act against the Bible and it is right, then that would be unethical and immoral.
Then, of course, it is up to establish what is the Truth, and if the Bible is right. THAT, is a debate both of us have no time for.
The problem arises when people think of separation of church and state as the separation of religious values and all things state, which is the false way to look at it. If morality and ethics are accurately stated and truth according tot he Bible, then one would hope that politicians follow this Truth. Separation of Church and State means no state church, and that the state does not intervene in the matters of the church, not that there are no religious values instilled in politics.
I suppose the aversion that many have for such a way of thinking is that it then seems that the Church is making the rules, But if you turn it around, and think about matters of Truth, then it makes sense that someone who is convinced of a certain truth acts accordingly.
the fact that the values are seemingly religious, though a matter of stigma, does not in any way make the statement on gay marriage, abortion etc any less true. Valid argument and deduction does, not the simple fact that it is instilled from a Christian view point.
If the Christians are right, then it is ethical and moral to act as the Bible says. If they are wrong, then it is the opposite. Just because you are Christian does not mean you cannot use Christian values in politics, because the validity of the truth is independent from the affiliation.
Thus, this becomes a matter of right versus wrong, truth versus non-truth, not a matter of secular thought versus Christian thought.
I believe that actions according to truth and logic are justified. If they happen to be Christian as well, then it's party time.
Then, the problem is establishing truth. So, you can criticize someone because you think they are wrong from a logical perspective, but you cannot criticize their opinion because it is religious, since the validity doesn't depend on the religion or person, but on logical necessity..."
"Hmmm...
Well, this deals with the concept of truth.
By logical necessity, there must exist a moral standard, an absolute truth that dictates what is and isn't ethical, and what is right and what is wrong. This necessity is found because two opposing truths cannot be true at the same time. If someone were to say that a rock is immovable, and someone else advances that this wind is irresistible, then there would be a direct contradiction in terms, and thus a logical conundrum, because these two concepts could not feasibly exist at the same time. Hence, someone is right, and someone is wrong. Thus, concluding that there must be an absolute truth, and not many varying, relative truths, everyone, politician or not, must follow this set of truth to be ethical, regardless of any outside opinion and motive. If two opposing concepts of what is ethical arise, then someone is right, and someone is wrong.
When it comes to the Bible, it claims to be THE Truth concerning the nature of the world, God, and ethics, and thus truth. The Bible does not have a way to be relativized, so it claims to be the absolute moral authority for mankind.
Thus, if someone opposes the supposed Truth stated in the Bible, then they are either right, or they are wrong. Remember that a person must follow the truth to be ethical in their decision making. Thus, if the Bible is in fact the truth, to follow it is to be ethical and moral. Reversely, if the Bible is wrong, it would be unethical to follow it.
If, then, a politician is convinced that the Bible is the truth, then to act following the Bible is not unethical, but quite the opposite, and if he were to act against the Bible and it is right, then that would be unethical and immoral.
Then, of course, it is up to establish what is the Truth, and if the Bible is right. THAT, is a debate both of us have no time for.
The problem arises when people think of separation of church and state as the separation of religious values and all things state, which is the false way to look at it. If morality and ethics are accurately stated and truth according tot he Bible, then one would hope that politicians follow this Truth. Separation of Church and State means no state church, and that the state does not intervene in the matters of the church, not that there are no religious values instilled in politics.
I suppose the aversion that many have for such a way of thinking is that it then seems that the Church is making the rules, But if you turn it around, and think about matters of Truth, then it makes sense that someone who is convinced of a certain truth acts accordingly.
the fact that the values are seemingly religious, though a matter of stigma, does not in any way make the statement on gay marriage, abortion etc any less true. Valid argument and deduction does, not the simple fact that it is instilled from a Christian view point.
If the Christians are right, then it is ethical and moral to act as the Bible says. If they are wrong, then it is the opposite. Just because you are Christian does not mean you cannot use Christian values in politics, because the validity of the truth is independent from the affiliation.
Thus, this becomes a matter of right versus wrong, truth versus non-truth, not a matter of secular thought versus Christian thought.
I believe that actions according to truth and logic are justified. If they happen to be Christian as well, then it's party time.
Then, the problem is establishing truth. So, you can criticize someone because you think they are wrong from a logical perspective, but you cannot criticize their opinion because it is religious, since the validity doesn't depend on the religion or person, but on logical necessity..."
posted by Patty VonWebster at 9:39 PM
1 Comments:
Spot on. Much as I applaud the veto of stem-cell research, though, it would be nice if more people were vocal about exploiting unborn humans without basing themselves on Christian values... Just because it would mean that people were naturally less evil than they make themselves out to be.
On another note, the whole problem with the French is that they see mean Church intervention everywhere, while conveniently forgetting that that since they've effectively kicked the Church out of society it can't really do squat. "Oh, les religious authorities, zey are ruling zis country..." Er no...
Post a Comment
<< Home