#relativty

if someone were to say to me, "life is meaningless," i would ask them if their statement or definition is meaningful. you see, it is not possible to debunk meaning with a meaningful statement. if someone were to say to me, "everything in life is meaningless," i would probably also say to them "you don't really believe that." and he'd probably say, "yes i do, who are you to tell me what i believe," and my response would be, "if you say 'everything in life is meaningless,' i assume that you assume that what you just said was meaningful, and if what you've just said is meaningful, then everything cannot be meaningless. on the other hand, if everything is meaningless, then what you've just said is meaningless and you've said nothing." i'm not trying to put someone down or make them feel stupid, but imagine all the people in this world with astounding intellectual capacity who live their lives believing that life is meaningless. it just tells you, what is this all about then? why do i have to make sense? why do i have to defend christian doctrine, and make sense? if life is meaningless, why should my philosophy be meaningful?

secondly..

relativity (a really summarized explanation): a refutation of absolute truth. the idea that no truth, no one truth, fits on all people everywhere. 

the moment you say that no one religion can have the whole truth, the every religion simply has a piece of the truth, you are claiming the very knowledge that you say no one can have. that's what you just did - you alone as the relativist see ultimate reality, you alone as the relativist understand how the universe works, you are claiming the very things you call christians, and muslims, and jews arrogant bigots for. see, it's silly - you can't say there's no truth, because that would have to be true, now wouldn't it?

the majority of americans now believe that no one religion can know the fullness of spiritual truth, and that those who claim they do know the fullness of spiritual truth are arrogant and intolerant. 

a common way to illustrate this point is the indian parable of the elephant and the blind men. the elephant is supposed to represent God/ultimate reality and the blind men are various religions. the story goes somewhat like this: one man goes to feel the elephant and he grabs the trunk, and he says okay, this thing is like a snake, it's a snake! and another guy grabs the leg and he says oh no no, it's nothing like a snake, it's like a tree trunk! it's a tree trunk! and some other guy is just feeling the side of the elephant and he says no, wait, it's a wall. this is a wall. and the fourth guy is just in the back holding the tail and he's like i don't know what you're talking about, this thing is just hairy. 

now, here's the point: the point of the parable is to show how each of the religions, while all somewhat correct, are all, ultimately, wrong. and that anyone who would steadfastly say, "an elephant is like a snake. and i don't care what anybody else says, an elephant is like a snake," is arrogant, foolish, and causes violence against humanity. 

surprise! i have a problem with this.

i have a problem with this because i am a believer in Jesus Christ. but if you're a skeptic, you don't care. so i will address the other reason why i have a problem with this.

i have a problem with this idea because it is intellectually inconsistent. it uses smoke and mirrors to make itself appear more tolerant and "enlightened" than the rest of us, when in reality, it's no more tolerant or enlightened. 

let me explain...

the only way that the parable of the elephant and the blind men makes any sense is if the narrator of the story sees the whole elephant. the moment you claim "ultimate reality is unknowable" you have just claimed the knowledge that you say cannot be claimed. the second that you say "ultimate reality is unknowable" and "ultimate truth is unknowable" you've just claimed the knowledge that you say no one can have. 

this is intellectually inconsistent. i'm not speaking religiously. i'm speaking intellectually, philosophically - relativity has an unbelievable amount of holes. 

on top of that, the belief system that no one can know God in such a way as to invalidate what someone else believes about God is in itself a religion that has it's own affirmations, denials, and absolute truths. this parable is sort of comical on a philosophical level. 

here would be/are their affirmations: God is ultimately unknowable. no one can know the full truth about God. the only way to possibly know that, is to claim that you know how the universe works, and why it works that way. 

consider these (relativistic) statements: all religions are the same. all religions are following a path to God. it does not matter what you believe or what path you take, it's how you live.  these are religions statements - dogmatic, doctrinal statements about God. so they are claiming, by saying there is no truth, and then saying that no one can know God in His fullness, and all religions can lead to God, it doesn't matter what you believe but how you live - those are absolute religious statements. 

here is the irony of ironies: the relativist and me are claiming the same thing, which is an understanding of ultimate reality, only at different points of emphasis, except he sees me as arrogant and himself as enlightened.