George Lippert

Darren Bell

George and Darren are having a conversation about faith and worldview.  George is an artist/writer who is a christian, and Darren is an engineer who is an “agnostic.”  The last several days they’ve been having a conversation on martyholman.com based on this question:

MH:  In a world full of opinions and thoughts and gray, as opposed to previous eras of black and white, it can be tough to really know where someone’s coming from. As a writer/artist (George) and an engineer (Darren), What is the basis for your worldview?

They talked for some time of the Bible and rationalism and belief and knowledge and have shown the utmost respect for one another in the process.  But coming to the end of the conversation, will it get intense?  Here’s the finale of George and Darren.  And in case you missed them -

part 1
part 2
part 3 – with Jeff

The first comment from George is from part 3, but is important to read before Darren responds, as Darren references several parts of George’s comments:

George Lippert:  The claim that Truth is unknowable is, in itself, a Truth claim. What is the basis for this Truth claim? Using your previous comments, I’m led to the next few questions.

I appreciate that you use analogies. You describe us as people wandering aimlessly in a foggy wood. We are unable to know the full Truth about this wood because none of us can see the whole of it. I’ll call this the Holistic Quotient.

On the other hand, you compare Truth about spiritual matters (vague and disparate) to the Truth about the mass of an electron (measurable and uniform). I’ll call this the Disparity Quotient, and I think it is a very fair question, one that I consider myself at length.

The Holistic Quotient is one you already addressed by acknowledging that, eventually, one has to make logical assumptions based on the available evidence. Thus, you do not need to measure every electron on earth to determine a logical assumption of its mass. And yet you say that since we cannot experience the absolute totality of God’s alleged omnipotence, said omnipotence cannot be assumed. Why?

The Disparity Quotient is admittedly trickier, methinks. Still, how does disparity of beliefs about spiritual matters deny that there might be one absolute Truth? Many people might disagree about the contents of a mysterious box (think of the classic thought experiment of Schrodinger’s Cat), but that does not imply that there is not one constant truth regarding what actually IS in the box.

To claim that disparity of beliefs means there is no such thing as Truth seems to me like saying that in a world of second graders there would be no such thing as algebra. Mathematical Truths exist even if the second graders have no concept of them (although they themselves may deny it vehemently).

So. All that to say, how do you back up your Truth claim that there is no way of knowing Truth? I believe I know Truth (albeit in a limited form, revealed by God’s revelation through the Bible, and through NO act of wisdom, wit, or worth on my part). Your worldview denies mine. Therefore, I would be curious to know what your basis is for it. Why, in short, am I wrong?

Darren bell:  I don’t actually have a problem with faith, but I believe faith should be put within reasonable limits. Faith should be salted by an understanding that as humans our perspectives are very limited, and we cannot make claims larger then what we actually have knowledge of.

I don’t believe any ground exists where it is possible to say that one religion is right and one is wrong, or that there is one true path, etc. To say that you need the top of the mountain view, and no human being has that.

All tertiary claims of having a top of the mountain perspective to me are no better. To say, “I do not have knowledge of the top of the mountain, but I know the creator of the mountain, and he told me what the mountain looks like from the top” or any variation of divine revelation through a secondary source whether person or book still claims to have irrefutable knowledge of the source. The source makes claims greater then humans can reasonably make, but you trust the source, so you allow it to make greater claims then you would yourself. At different points in our lives we all do this. I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier this week about a relationship, and she was giving me advice and I recognized that in my current circumstances she had more perspective on my life then I did so I listened to her. Because I know her I trusted her and I recognized that my decision making ability was impaired.

I have three problems with extending what I mention above about my friend to religion. 1) I’m still responsible for that decision, and almost all of the facts surrounding the decision are obtainable by me, it’s just confusing. Meaning that the advice I accepted wasn’t out of the circle I have drawn around myself for what I can and cannot know, she was just helping me make sense of the facts I had in my circle. That I had observed or experienced firsthand and involve people I know. 2) The evidence required to substantiate the claims that because you know God in your own sphere means he is God everywhere and over everyone in order for you to extrapolate his seeming omnipotence to you to the universe are very high, and as far as I can tell unobtainable. 3) The subjectiveness of the argument, and the fact that the subjectiveness of spirituality does not lead to consensus but leads to dissent and that there are literally millions of people all claiming to know absolute truths, or claiming to know the creator that has told them the Truth, that contradict each other should concern any person. It is highly concerning.

In the 21st century we literally lock people up that say they have received divine revelation or know personally the God of the universe, unless they are part of an established church. I don’t believe any of the evidence of the Bible stands up to modern critique and the rigorousness by which we judge it is watered down because of it’s antiquity and the mysticism surrounding it. If anyone claimed that someone rose from the dead today we don’t believe them, it doesn’t matter how much proof they have or what they say. As modern people we believe that to be impossible. But it was possible 2000 years ago!

But in the end I concede that to my mind there is enough room for God even in the most reasonable and rigorously defined formulation of knowledge. Our doubts and unknowable are just too great. And though I have serious concerns about that moral compass of mine leading me towards religion just being sociological and cultural baggage . . . there the needle rests none the less.

Faith salted in this way leads to respect of other people, it leads to humility when viewing yourself and it leads to you putting yourself in a worldview that includes other people and is able to be widened by others experiences also.

GL:  Thanks Darren.

DB:  I wouldn’t say that my worldview denies that there might be Truth, or even that the Bible reveals God through revelation. I like your analogy about the second graders and algebra, but the only thing I would say about it is that you say that second graders can’t comprehend something higher then them, but that that higher thing exists in spite of their knowledge of it. And yet, if you give second graders the chance to advance mathematics . . . you would wind up short of algebra or calculus. You would end up with a mess.

Sans an algebra book of course, which is what we all claim we have.

Here indeed is the crux of the whole issue:

“But honestly, here’s the nub of it: if Christianity isn’t true for everyone, then it isn’t true at all. That’s evident in Jesus’ own words. Call it arrogant, simple-minded, and culturally insensitive, but none of those things are arguments against the veracity of the claim.”

I agree with you that this doctrine is true. And it is the chief conflict of my religious thought at the moment.

Because I assert that you do not have the authority to say such a thing. To make such a claim. And more to the point: I think it is too far reaching to allow the Bible the authority to make such a point.

It is beyond what it is possible for a human to know. I do not believe that any amount of historical or psychological evidence can support the claim (especially in light of the conflict of other people against such views) that the Bible is the revelation from God that is applicable to all human beings.

The more I look at myself and the arguments and evidence I rely on. The more I see other people saying the opposite thing from me who rely on the same subjective experiences, cultural momentum and historical evidences backing up their antithesis. And it shakes my foundations and makes me questions the basis of all my beliefs, correctly so.

That being said, I don’t reject that God may exist. But my rationality forces me to frame God within my known limits of what I can have the ability to declare. I do not have the ability to know whether the Bible is God’s inerrant word for all human kind, and therefore I do not claim it is, regardless of the fact that according to it’s internal doctrine I must claim that in order to adhere to it perfectly. I can BELIEVE, I can have FAITH, but I cannot KNOW.

GL:  I like it when we find places that we can agree upon, even if our perspectives on them are totally different. Again, I suspect this could go on forever, so for now I am content to say “good topic everybody!”

George Lippert

Darren Bell

Round three took place on a quiet Monday afternoon, as George worked at his computer in St. Louis and Darren nodded off at his workplace in Philly.  But just when things were starting to quiet down, my friend Jeff asked to read the conversation, and believing the conversation to be a part of an ‘all-in’ facebook thread, he intervened, and brought new life to the conversation.  You can read parts 1 and 2 here and here.

Jeff Campbell (JC):  This is Jeff Campbell. What an awesome go around. There’s a whole bunch of things I’d love to chime in on. But I think I’d like to muddy the waters in one quite specific way. I think this really applies to both of the positions I’ve seen lain out here.
The question (which I’ll admit is a wee bit loaded) for me is this:
In most of our relationships, we don’t wander around looking for propositionally sound logic. I don’t make any attempt to inductively or deductively prove my love for my wife.
Why does this appear to be our sole mode of discussion about God?
I’ll buy that some of this belongs– since George has never met my wife (Darren has) I might owe him some sort of scientific/mathematically sound argument to prove her existence.
I believe in Truth with a capital T but agnowledge I only percieve truth with a lower case t; I believe the whole thing is wonderously and glorioiusly subjective in this life…
Any thoughts?

Jeff Campbell

GL:  Hi Jeff,

Just to try a quick stab at this: as you say, if I (for some reason) decided to deny that your wife exists, it would not be enough for you to tell me that she exists because you love her. I would require SOME sort of scientific, objective proof. While I myself am content that the Bible’s claims are true, that Christianity is the one way to God, etc, I respect the doubts of those who require more concrete, measurable evidence. In the case of your wife, you could merely point at her and say, “there she is,” case closed. Making the case for Christian belief with those who do not immediately except the inerrency of the Bible (or my subjective experience of it), etc, is a very different prospect.

Fortunately, I think the truth of Christianity can indeed be shown (although not conclusively proven) by historical, psychological evidence. As you know, many skeptics have approached the historical record with intention to disprove Christianity only to become converts themselves.

Thus, I am reluctant to merely state “Christianity is true because this is how it subjectively effects me”. The Truth is not true because I believe it. It’s true even if no one believes it. That’s what makes it Truth. I respect the doubter and the true skeptic enough to deal with the issue on their terms.

At least, as much as possible.

DB:

Darren Bell

George Lippert

Yesterday I introduced a conversation between my friends George and Darren.  I know them from two completely different contexts, but from my recent facebook interactions with them, I noticed that they were very similar in some ways and very different in others.  So I thought I would ask them to answer some questions for me via email, then replay the action here at martyholman.com.  The following is part 2 of that discussion.  You can find part 1 here.

George Lippert (GL):  Intellectually and spiritually stimulating, Darren.

If I understand you correctly (and pardon me if I am boiling down a stew to make a pill), is it a fair summary to say that your perspective is basically that everyone’s truth is true for them but not necessarily true for anyone else? All religions are equal (different paths up the same mountain)? In essence, is it the case that all truths are relative to he/she who believes them, based on the proposition that, to them, those truths order their world, give them clarity, and therefore serve the basic purpose of a belief system?

Darren Bell (DB):  Partly. But mostly I think I’m trying to say something deeper.

To take the mountain analogy and the famous humanist scenario of many people walking up the mountain from different sides all moving towards an ascendancy, the top of the mountain. A friend once told me that that story has the major flaw of all bad philosophy, that it fails to take itself into account and be self-reflective. The story requires a view from the top of the mountain to propose.

When I was thinking about your summary earlier today my first response was “No! I’m claiming there is no mountain at all!” Then I realized that is also claiming a knowledge that I don’t have.

To keep the mountain metaphor going in my view people are walking around in a forest with ~20 yards of visibility. In walking around we meet other people and talk to them about what they have seen walking around. And sometimes you meet people that are walking around that claim that we are all on a mountain, and that some people are going the correct way in the forest and others are going the incorrect way.

I hate the word truth. The sentence “Everyone’s truth is true for them” to me is the whole problem, and it is what most people do. They have experiences, they put those experiences together and then they blanket the world with them and operate like they are true for everyone. I think it is a very subtle difference but it is to me, an important difference in attitude about how you view your ‘own truth’ or ‘own worldview’. And that you DON’T let your personal truth become Truth.

Because Truth is unknowable.

To talk even briefly about the God thing. To know for a fact that God existed using the faculties we have you would have to be able to witness his infinity. Literally, to say God is infinite you have to see his infinity, you have to see or experience his omnipotence everywhere and through all time. Maybe there is a very strong force that operates in my cubicle at work, as far as I know it is omnipotent. But when I go to my co-workers cubicle he is no longer powerful there.

Now I understand that at some point for knowledge to grow you have to extrapolate knowledge from your circle of experiences and make assumptions about the way the rest of the world works. The problem with most of spirituality though is that the experiences people have are GLARINGLY DIFFERENT!! In science when a scientist measures the mass of an electron every other scientist measures the same mass. However when people follow their ‘internal moral compass’ everyone scatters like cats each chasing their own cubicle god and claiming it is God. “Well he is god in my cubicle so he must be God everywhere.” That is bad extrapolation. And the myriad of human experience tells us that is bad extrapolation because there is no consistency of experience between one person and the next.

I don’t have Truth. I have experiences and perspective, and those things can never be wrong, only my interpretations of their meaning can be wrong. Because of that I try to be very careful with my interpretations of there meaning and confine that interpretation into what I believe claims that can be rationally asserted and are also going to be true for the next person that has the same experiences as me. You know . . . more or less.

GL:  Thanks for going into it again, Darren. Obviously I disagree on some major points, but I won’t spend anymore time in this post hashing over it (unless you and Marty wish it). We could go on for volumes, I am sure. I do agree with you vigorously on the futility of seeking Truth through subjective personal cogitations and speculations. I suspect we humans no more contain Truth than lightning bugs contain Lightning (to paraphrase the immortal Twain).

MH:  Actually, I wish it. Would love to hear your answers to his, and maybe another round or two.

GL:  Well, honestly, my answer is just a couple more questions. I really don’t mean for this to be belligerent, so I apologize in advance if this sounds obtuse.  The claim that Truth is unknowable is, in itself, a Truth claim. What is the basis for this Truth claim? Using your previous comments, I’m led to the next few questions.

I appreciate that you use analogies. You describe us as people wandering aimlessly in a foggy wood. We are unable to know the full Truth about this wood because none of us can see the whole of it. I’ll call this the Holistic Quotient.
On the other hand, you compare Truth about spiritual matters (vague and disparate) to the Truth about the mass of an electron (measurable and uniform). I’ll call this the Disparity Quotient, and I think it is a very fair question, one that I consider myself at length.

The Holistic Quotient is one you already addressed by acknowledging that, eventually, one has to make logical assumptions based on the available evidence. Thus, you do not need to measure every electron on earth to determine a logical assumption of its mass. And yet you say that since we cannot experience the absolute totality of God’s alleged omnipotence, said omnipotence cannot be assumed. Why?

The Disparity Quotient is admittedly trickier, methinks. Still, how does disparity of beliefs about spiritual matters deny that there might be one absolute Truth? Many people might disagree about the contents of a mysterious box (think of the classic thought experiment of Schrodinger’s Cat), but that does not imply that there is not one constant truth regarding what actually IS in the box.

To claim that disparity of beliefs means there is no such thing as Truth seems to me like saying that in a world of second graders there would be no such thing as algebra. Mathematical Truths exist even if the second graders have no concept of them (although they themselves may deny it vehemently).

So. All that to say, how do you back up your Truth claim that there is no way of knowing Truth? I believe I know Truth (albeit in a limited form, revealed by God’s revelation through the Bible, and through NO act of wisdom, wit, or worth on my part). Your worldview denies mine. Therefore, I would be curious to know what your basis is for it. Why, in short, am I wrong?

MH:  Feel free to comment your thoughts and opinions.

George Lippert

Darren Bell

George Lippert and Darren Bell.

A creative  and an engineer, both who happen to be friends of mine, and today I’d like to introduce you to a new feature of Martyholman.com.  Both George and Darren are really really smart.  Now I wouldn’t tell them this, but when I see them write on facebook or their blogs or when I chat with them, their insight and thoughts have inspired me to think more, so as a connector, I had an idea.

Why not get them to help more people think in a gentleman’s dual of intellect.

So I asked George and Darren, as two men who think very different from one another in some ways, and very much alike in others, to answer a question that I would ask via email, and then chat back and forth about their answers.  Along the way, Jeff Campbell gets involved in the conversation, and he makes things even more interesting.  Because this conversation was so lengthy, these posts will last most of the week.  I trust you’ll be inspired to think thorugh their conversation and ask questions to all the participants.  So I’d like to introduce you to George (GL) and Darren (DB).

MH:  So tell us a bit about yourselves.

George Lippert:  I’m a full time CG artist and part-time writer currently haunting the suburbs of St. Louis. Between being a husband, a father of two awesome little kidlets, paying taxes, cooking Mexican food, mowing the lawn, keeping my 100-year-old house from falling down, and playing lots of racing video games, I formulate lots and lots of “controversial” opinions. Some of them I will surely share below.

Darren Bell:  I’m Darren Bell. I’m a Chemical Engineer living in Philadelphia that lived for 6 years in New England mostly going to college and one of those years attending Fellowship Church. Spiritually I’ve been all over the spectrum from an Ayn Rand-esque athiest to going through 40 Days of Purpose. The last couple years I’ve been away from the church and Christianity, in the past 6 months I’ve found a church I really like in Philadelphia. Although aesthetically something appeals to me in Christianity and also I find it helpful to be reminded of certain morals I tend to forget I am pretty much agnostic.