Oscar Wilde obviously thinks so.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." - Oscar Wilde
I think most people would know what Oscar was talking about when he said this. It is no mystery that man can be a wicked debased creature. That his capacity for cruelty, corruption and malice are second to none. No thing in creation so perverts itself as comprehensively as man. it seems that there is no place or action too disgusting for some person on earth to wallow in.
However that is not the sum total of man. Man also has the exceptional ability to display unmitigated selflessness. To express love to the unlovable, compassion to the underpriveleged, grace to the ungraceful. Man, more than any other thing in creation has the capacity for love, respect, honour, passion, and just plain goodness. Mark Twain wrote “God has put something noble and good into every heart His hand created.”
So here we have this dichotomy of character that at different times manifests itself to varying degrees in all of us. The question some people ask is "Why did God create us with the ability to be at once so noble and yet so base?". However I think the real question is "How could God have created us with freedom, yet at the same time forced us to always be good and perfect". In fact the two concepts are mutually exclusive, because as soon as you inhibit bad behaviour you are at the same time inhibiting freedom. The more freedom you give, the more chance there is to misuse that freedom for evil purposes. Why do people choose bad behaviour? The same reason they reject Gods ways. Man has an innate desire for complete autonomy and God gets in the way of that selfish desire. The result is that God allows us to be consumed by our own evil desires because he loved us enough to let us choose. But make no mistake: we choose our own behaviours and our own destiny. How about we stop blaming God for what is clearly our fault.
Oscar Wilde was most certainly being facetious, and probably meant something like "clearly there is no God, for who would create such a flawed being, and if he did so then he would certainly not be a perfect God, therefore God is either fake or flawed, and in either case worshipping him is not justified". But I believe that mans pervertedness is just proof of mans pervertedness and evidence that God will not interrupt us in our quest for freedom and autonomy. Yet still he stands by the side of the road offering safety and redemption from our own foolishness. God created us with the ability to cause lots of problems, yet in his love he gave us to perfect solution for all of them.
The difference between Oscar Wilde and myself is that while he states that God made us that way because of His lack of abilities, I believe he made us with freedom to choose either way, out of His divine wisdom.
Showing posts with label wisdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wisdom. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Friday, February 01, 2008
Freedom of speech?
Mark Twain wrote "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."
Perhaps it applied when he penned those words, but I doubt whether such a sentiment could be applied to todays world. It seems that everywhere you go there is someone spouting their opinions and their right to express them. Anyone it seems is allowed to not only have their opinions, but also express them in any way they choose as long as it is according to the golden rule.
Freedom of speech is interpreted today as being able to say whatever you want. In fact it has been extended to cover other ways in which to express ones thoughts and beliefs so that it could be rephrased as the freedom of action. Freedom of conscience has been interpreted as the freedom to choose what is right or wrong in your own mind to the point that we now have a million different ways in which to frame our morality, hence the marginalisation of absolute truth. How can be curb what basically constitutes a move towards complete anarchy?
The interesting part of Twains phrase is the beginning where he states that it is by the goodness of God that we have these three things. Today however it seems the third is sadly lacking. Prudence is something that is very rare in todays society. In fact I suspect that most people find the word prudence to have negative connotations, and certainly is not a trait that many people aspire to have and exhibit.
The natural consequence of kicking God out of the 21st Century is that we will suffer the foolishness of our actions. Wisdom is left in the wake of the death of God and prudence along with it. It seems there is a lunatic on every street corner proclaiming their version of life and personal rights and few people exercising restraint.
You may speak about and be an activist for any cause it seems except for the one that champions the one true God of heaven and earth. If that be the case then you will be vilified for breaching the one exception to the rule of freedom of speech, and that is "God doesn't belong in public dialogue"
I believe however that removing God from the public dialogue will prove to be the worst thing that man has done this century.
Perhaps it applied when he penned those words, but I doubt whether such a sentiment could be applied to todays world. It seems that everywhere you go there is someone spouting their opinions and their right to express them. Anyone it seems is allowed to not only have their opinions, but also express them in any way they choose as long as it is according to the golden rule.
Freedom of speech is interpreted today as being able to say whatever you want. In fact it has been extended to cover other ways in which to express ones thoughts and beliefs so that it could be rephrased as the freedom of action. Freedom of conscience has been interpreted as the freedom to choose what is right or wrong in your own mind to the point that we now have a million different ways in which to frame our morality, hence the marginalisation of absolute truth. How can be curb what basically constitutes a move towards complete anarchy?
The interesting part of Twains phrase is the beginning where he states that it is by the goodness of God that we have these three things. Today however it seems the third is sadly lacking. Prudence is something that is very rare in todays society. In fact I suspect that most people find the word prudence to have negative connotations, and certainly is not a trait that many people aspire to have and exhibit.
The natural consequence of kicking God out of the 21st Century is that we will suffer the foolishness of our actions. Wisdom is left in the wake of the death of God and prudence along with it. It seems there is a lunatic on every street corner proclaiming their version of life and personal rights and few people exercising restraint.
You may speak about and be an activist for any cause it seems except for the one that champions the one true God of heaven and earth. If that be the case then you will be vilified for breaching the one exception to the rule of freedom of speech, and that is "God doesn't belong in public dialogue"
I believe however that removing God from the public dialogue will prove to be the worst thing that man has done this century.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Tradition or Progress?
Is Tradition the enemy of Progress?
Progress definition
“Forward or onward movement in space; advance, development” – The Concise Oxford Dictionary 5th edition.
“An advance step by step; improvement” – The pocket Macquarie Dictionary
Progress outcomes
Is progress desirable? Let us first leave aside all pessimistic connotations regarding 20th century progress such as the negative effects of the industrial revolution and stick to the pure definition whereby progress is fundamentally and solely evidenced by improvement. By this definition, is this something everyone wants?
I would suggest that it is. Unless one is bold enough to suggest that the current situation is perfect, then clearly improvement can be made, and is desirable.
We can view improvement from a number of different angles:
1. Financial progress – this is expressed by an improvement in financial status. This can be reflected in two ways but always with the end result a balance of income and expenditure preferably with residual income. The scenario that is desirable is either an increase in income, or a reduction in expenditure (or a combination of both) with the outcome of relieving debt or enabling purchase of more or better material goods in order to improve the living standard, or to facilitate achieving better results in the other areas of progress.
2. Intellectual progress – an adding to the intellect by way of either increasing useful knowledge or broadening our perspective, in order to improve our understanding and more concisely perceive fundamental and Godly truths.
3. Spiritual Progress – a growth in the direction of increased focus on spiritual things. That is, all things associated with God and pertaining to a devotion to Him and His word, and reflecting a life of Christ-like nature.
4. Moral Progress – An improved state of morality within society, not only within particular socio-economic groups or sub-cultures such as the church, but also in society as a whole, engendered by Christian influence in all matters of state.
5. Civil Progress – Improvement in civilisation which separates us from the animal kingdom; honour, propriety, politeness, advanced culture. To improve civilisation is to remove us further from barbarism and barbaric practice of all sorts.
An altruistic view of progress would incorporate the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In essence, the priority is that of the welfare and benefit of the collective is of higher importance than that of the individual. This however does not mean that at any point that one person should suffer injustice in order that others receive the greater good. The type of progress that we are talking about does not include methods that are at best described as pragmatic. I do not believe that the end justifies the means. Horourable and just means are of prime importance,
Democracy supports such a principle or the greater good and it is one of the core tenets of Western society. As such, ideas of the majority rule in voting and a right of opinion were instituted and co-exist to provide what we believe to be the fair system of democracy.
To some extent then progress is achieved quite effectively through the expression of a democratic society. Contrast this to a society under the oppressive rule of a despot, or the state rule of a Communist country and it is clear to see where the most progress occurs.
There may be some debate about some of the particulars, and I will accede to the arguments of Solzhenitsyn regarding the problem of modernity, however the generalisation is relatively safe to make, and that is: democracy is a great facilitator of progress.
We vote our leaders into power in order to govern the country and we vote our elders in at church in order that they govern the church for the good of the majority. Further to this the elders of our church have a greater responsibility to remain true to God’s word and calling, and to shepherd the Church flock, leading them into Godliness.
Although partially flawed and taking second place to an ideal, but impossible to implement, government by Theocracy (whereby the people are governed solely by God) democracy has proven to be our best form of government both in Church and State, provided that the leaders remain on track with God’s will and purpose.
Tradition definition
“1. Opinion or belief handed down, handing down of these, from ancestors to posterity.
2. Doctrine etc, supposed to have divine authority but not committed to writing, …
3. Artistic or literary principle(s) based on accumulated experience or continuous usage” – The Concise Oxford Dictionary 5th edition
“The handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice” – The Pocket Macquarie Dictionary
The Point of Antagonism
The point at which most people probably believe progress is at odds with tradition is where tradition seems to contradict the democratic result. In other words, the voice of tradition is in resounding opposition to the direction that the majority has chosen as a means to progress. To flippantly use the modernistic approach that newer is always better would be a dereliction of Christian duty. This is a secular philosophical position that has no basis in scripture, and is actually antagonistic to a Christian world-view.
Is the voice of tradition a worthy one?
Does tradition have value in our cultural and spiritual discourse or is it hopelessly out-dated in today’s modern world?
The answer to this question lies in debunking a fundamental misconception about both the nature of truth and the origin of tradition.
Firstly, truth (universal, Godly spiritual truth) is unchanging. The origin of truth is the Living God who does not change according to the times (as a chameleon or changeling) but rather remains dependably and perfectly consistent.
Secondly, tradition is based around truth, and the perceptions that men (generation after generation) had regarding these truths and how they expressed these truths in a way that was honouring to God and helped remind us of His nature. Tradition is not fundamentally culturally based even though this can influence somewhat the form that tradition takes.
Of course the Achilles Heel of democracy is most evident when the sample of people in question are a unique collection of fools, and the outcome is inevitably foolish.
Likewise tradition can fail when men of equally foolish nature come to a false conclusion and implement this into a foolish tradition, which endures while subsequent men remain unthinking.
Have men got it wrong before? Yes.
Do men get it wrong today? Yes.
Should we gather the collective wisdom of the most discerning men available in order to ascertain the most correct interpretation and expression of truth possible? Absolutely!
But rather than limit ourselves to the men at hand now why not take into account the wisdom of those before us. Consider the words of Chesterton:
Democracy of the dead (Tradition and democracy)
“I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time”
"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea." – G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy Chapter 4 pp46-47
So is tradition the enemy of progress? Well it seems clear that tradition is at least the ally of democracy, and since democracy is so intrinsically associated with progress, then it can be argued that tradition is certainly not in opposition with progress.
Quite the contrary, tradition can actually aid in bringing about progress by refining our flawed system, through the provision of the accumulated wisdom of all those who have gone before.
The Japanese have a system called Kaizen, which we know as “continuous improvement” or “constant innovation”. There are two corollaries that ought to be provided with this saying:
“If it ‘aint broke, don’t fix it.” – If a traditional method is effective, don’t mess around with it. Change for changes sake is as bad as tradition for traditions sake. Both are superfluous and can often provide worse results than before.
“Don’t reinvent the wheel” – Refusing to consult the mass of wisdom encapsulated in tradition is ignorant and foolish. To decide to prove all the laws of physics from mathematical first principles, although challenging and intellectually rewarding for some, is a gross waste of time since these laws are universally recognised. Much more beneficial would be to apply these already-proven laws to make something useful like a motorcar or a washing machine. The concept is to build upon established and proven knowledge rather than start from scratch. Philosophically speaking we should act a–priori rather than a-posteriori.
To me, progress should submit to tradition. Tradition should aid in progress. The key lies in understanding the true form of beneficial progress.
Progress definition
“Forward or onward movement in space; advance, development” – The Concise Oxford Dictionary 5th edition.
“An advance step by step; improvement” – The pocket Macquarie Dictionary
Progress outcomes
Is progress desirable? Let us first leave aside all pessimistic connotations regarding 20th century progress such as the negative effects of the industrial revolution and stick to the pure definition whereby progress is fundamentally and solely evidenced by improvement. By this definition, is this something everyone wants?
I would suggest that it is. Unless one is bold enough to suggest that the current situation is perfect, then clearly improvement can be made, and is desirable.
We can view improvement from a number of different angles:
1. Financial progress – this is expressed by an improvement in financial status. This can be reflected in two ways but always with the end result a balance of income and expenditure preferably with residual income. The scenario that is desirable is either an increase in income, or a reduction in expenditure (or a combination of both) with the outcome of relieving debt or enabling purchase of more or better material goods in order to improve the living standard, or to facilitate achieving better results in the other areas of progress.
2. Intellectual progress – an adding to the intellect by way of either increasing useful knowledge or broadening our perspective, in order to improve our understanding and more concisely perceive fundamental and Godly truths.
3. Spiritual Progress – a growth in the direction of increased focus on spiritual things. That is, all things associated with God and pertaining to a devotion to Him and His word, and reflecting a life of Christ-like nature.
4. Moral Progress – An improved state of morality within society, not only within particular socio-economic groups or sub-cultures such as the church, but also in society as a whole, engendered by Christian influence in all matters of state.
5. Civil Progress – Improvement in civilisation which separates us from the animal kingdom; honour, propriety, politeness, advanced culture. To improve civilisation is to remove us further from barbarism and barbaric practice of all sorts.
An altruistic view of progress would incorporate the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In essence, the priority is that of the welfare and benefit of the collective is of higher importance than that of the individual. This however does not mean that at any point that one person should suffer injustice in order that others receive the greater good. The type of progress that we are talking about does not include methods that are at best described as pragmatic. I do not believe that the end justifies the means. Horourable and just means are of prime importance,
Democracy supports such a principle or the greater good and it is one of the core tenets of Western society. As such, ideas of the majority rule in voting and a right of opinion were instituted and co-exist to provide what we believe to be the fair system of democracy.
To some extent then progress is achieved quite effectively through the expression of a democratic society. Contrast this to a society under the oppressive rule of a despot, or the state rule of a Communist country and it is clear to see where the most progress occurs.
There may be some debate about some of the particulars, and I will accede to the arguments of Solzhenitsyn regarding the problem of modernity, however the generalisation is relatively safe to make, and that is: democracy is a great facilitator of progress.
We vote our leaders into power in order to govern the country and we vote our elders in at church in order that they govern the church for the good of the majority. Further to this the elders of our church have a greater responsibility to remain true to God’s word and calling, and to shepherd the Church flock, leading them into Godliness.
Although partially flawed and taking second place to an ideal, but impossible to implement, government by Theocracy (whereby the people are governed solely by God) democracy has proven to be our best form of government both in Church and State, provided that the leaders remain on track with God’s will and purpose.
Tradition definition
“1. Opinion or belief handed down, handing down of these, from ancestors to posterity.
2. Doctrine etc, supposed to have divine authority but not committed to writing, …
3. Artistic or literary principle(s) based on accumulated experience or continuous usage” – The Concise Oxford Dictionary 5th edition
“The handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice” – The Pocket Macquarie Dictionary
The Point of Antagonism
The point at which most people probably believe progress is at odds with tradition is where tradition seems to contradict the democratic result. In other words, the voice of tradition is in resounding opposition to the direction that the majority has chosen as a means to progress. To flippantly use the modernistic approach that newer is always better would be a dereliction of Christian duty. This is a secular philosophical position that has no basis in scripture, and is actually antagonistic to a Christian world-view.
Is the voice of tradition a worthy one?
Does tradition have value in our cultural and spiritual discourse or is it hopelessly out-dated in today’s modern world?
The answer to this question lies in debunking a fundamental misconception about both the nature of truth and the origin of tradition.
Firstly, truth (universal, Godly spiritual truth) is unchanging. The origin of truth is the Living God who does not change according to the times (as a chameleon or changeling) but rather remains dependably and perfectly consistent.
Secondly, tradition is based around truth, and the perceptions that men (generation after generation) had regarding these truths and how they expressed these truths in a way that was honouring to God and helped remind us of His nature. Tradition is not fundamentally culturally based even though this can influence somewhat the form that tradition takes.
Of course the Achilles Heel of democracy is most evident when the sample of people in question are a unique collection of fools, and the outcome is inevitably foolish.
Likewise tradition can fail when men of equally foolish nature come to a false conclusion and implement this into a foolish tradition, which endures while subsequent men remain unthinking.
Have men got it wrong before? Yes.
Do men get it wrong today? Yes.
Should we gather the collective wisdom of the most discerning men available in order to ascertain the most correct interpretation and expression of truth possible? Absolutely!
But rather than limit ourselves to the men at hand now why not take into account the wisdom of those before us. Consider the words of Chesterton:
Democracy of the dead (Tradition and democracy)
“I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time”
"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea." – G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy Chapter 4 pp46-47
So is tradition the enemy of progress? Well it seems clear that tradition is at least the ally of democracy, and since democracy is so intrinsically associated with progress, then it can be argued that tradition is certainly not in opposition with progress.
Quite the contrary, tradition can actually aid in bringing about progress by refining our flawed system, through the provision of the accumulated wisdom of all those who have gone before.
The Japanese have a system called Kaizen, which we know as “continuous improvement” or “constant innovation”. There are two corollaries that ought to be provided with this saying:
“If it ‘aint broke, don’t fix it.” – If a traditional method is effective, don’t mess around with it. Change for changes sake is as bad as tradition for traditions sake. Both are superfluous and can often provide worse results than before.
“Don’t reinvent the wheel” – Refusing to consult the mass of wisdom encapsulated in tradition is ignorant and foolish. To decide to prove all the laws of physics from mathematical first principles, although challenging and intellectually rewarding for some, is a gross waste of time since these laws are universally recognised. Much more beneficial would be to apply these already-proven laws to make something useful like a motorcar or a washing machine. The concept is to build upon established and proven knowledge rather than start from scratch. Philosophically speaking we should act a–priori rather than a-posteriori.
To me, progress should submit to tradition. Tradition should aid in progress. The key lies in understanding the true form of beneficial progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
