The 'reasons' for my dilemma

I sat down to work through (again) the suggestions of my fellow pastors, in-laws, friends and other lay people as to what my problem was. Some of the “reasons” they offered for my dilemma included:

a) I irrationally expect the truth to be knowable
b) I lack faith in God and His Word
c) I am turning ‘liberal’
d) I don’t have enough to do in my parish (too much time for thinking obviously)
e) Its just that I’m young, new pastor, in the first stage of development
f) I need to be patient in waiting for the answers coming from the CTICR (3-9 years)
g) I need to stop thinking and simply believe

I thought these through and discounted b) and g) immediately since my belief wasn’t the problem. I wanted to believe and was able to do so, but was not sure exactly what to believe!

Option a) posed a problem for a while. What if there is simply no way of knowing the truth? Am I avoiding this possibility simply to comfort myself with absolutes that do not exists? The answer to this accusation is detailed, many faceted and yet simple, and comes from one source: the Truth itself.

Firstly, if there were no truth then nothing would function at all. Not physically, mentally or spiritually. No matter what reality is, no matter how mistaken our view of it, there remains a reality for our mistakes to be measured against. Even Desecrate, who is uncertain of the nature of reality, insists on the surety of his own existence. Without truth, nothing exists to consider in any case.

Secondly, all the revelation we have access to would be contradicted and make no sense at all if reality was not accessible as far as faith and morals were concerned. The very existence of nature, the end of logic, the musings of the philosophers are enough to point to the existence of an ultimate reality. The Scriptures themselves deal with this reality not only as if it exists, but as if we can know it clearly.

If we suggest that reality or truth are not clearly knowable we must discount revelation, and thus Christianity, altogether. The Scriptures are not simply a collection of pious writings or spiritual reflections. The Scriptures are united in their witness to the one truth. The witness to the truth evident in the unified witness of creation, history, logic, philosophy, and in the person of Jesus Christ. If there is no knowing the truth, there is no Christ. Thus, no salvation.

Which brings me to the third point, which is really what the other two guard us from.

If there is no way or hope of finding truth, then all is meaningless. This life (if indeed it is a life) becomes a pointless and despairing existence which cannot reasonably hope for any sure end save the condemnation of whatever greater being awaits us after it is over. And if there is no such after, nor a greater being, that makes our actions and lives here equally as pointless, perhaps even more so.

Let us imagine, for a horrid moment, that there is no God, no eternal existence. Epicurius considered this idea, and held to it, and concluded that to enjoy or find fulfilment in the ‘now’ was the only point of our existence. The past is irrecoverable, the future unknowable, only the present is accessible. He reasoned that achieving a certain satisfaction in this present moment was the best one could hope for. He taught that this satisfaction was achievable by moderate living and the betterment of self and others. His followers soon degenerated into living the maxim ‘eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die’.

If you look around you I am sure, no matter when or where you are reading this, you will see ample evidence to show that this maxim is alive and well today. The fact that this maxim, containing the denial of truth beyond our earthly existence, has survived and thrived through countless generations is not without its own irony.

There are some who espouse a sort of middle ground between Epicurius ad his debauching followers. They suggest that a comfortable life, tempered with and aim to the betterment of other peoples lives is the most virtuous existence possible. But this attempt doesn’t make sense within its own parameters. If there is no truth, no ultimate reality or being, no afterlife, and no way of knowing what is right or wrong, then ALL attempts at virtue are doomed to failure. How can we know what we do achieves any real betterment of ourselves or society? How can we judge any such things with our subjective senses and thought processes. We see, again and again, children discussing parents in patronising fashion, suggesting that they cannot be blamed for their mistakes since ‘they acted on what they believed was right’ (which, of course, the children think is wrong).

By this very system I can never be sure if my actions are improving life for others or destroying it unwittingly. To rely on the motive of such actions is even more subjective.

So what then can a person who does not hope for truth hope for? In spite of the fact that Descarte seemed unsure of anything save his own existence, doubting the reliability of his own senses, the fact remains that the senses themselves do pass information and sensations to us. In other words, no matter how we doubt the ability of our senses to relate the truth to us, the fact that our senses relate something to us is knowable.

Even if these senses are themselves the invention of our imagination, the very fact that such things are invented is real.

So the only reality to work with is that of our own subjective perceptions. If we concentrate on that we have achieved the greatest hope possible for those who do not believe we can know truth. To gratify these senses is the only real goal of such an existence. Exactly how one would gratify the senses is subjective in itself.

In any case, to hold this view of truth would prohibit preaching, or asserting any norm at all.

Next: The Reasons: Part Two