Hello Disgruntled Cheapskate  . Thank you for entering this month's contest.
As the official Judge of this contest, I have the following comments to offer for "Truth or Lies?" 
Did you answer the question?
This was an honest appraisal of the question from someone who has thought about it on a personal level and is genuinely confused by the apparently bewildering range of perspectives on truth.
Use of quotes, proof-texting or AI - could I hear your voice?
You clearly interact with the various voices of people but this was distinctively your own voice and reflections on what is truth.
How consistent was your argument?
Your opening sentence smacked of humility, which is always a good approach to understanding. You then suggested that you favored a more materialistic approach to this question. Detective stories and scientific methods informed the gathering of facts and the solving of who dun' it mysteries. You spoke as someone who appeared like a spectator to truth claims, parading in front of you on the TV, but leaving you overwhelmed and confused. Yet it was clear that scientific methodologies and the honest appraisal of the best primary source evidence offered a solid approach to resolving a large percentage of debates about what is true. You then took a larger leap into the realm of religion, suggesting that certain kinds of truth were not accessible by a materialistic approach and that it felt a little lightweight to reduce them to a matter of liberal choices based on shallow, subjective reasoning. At the same time, you felt an honest appraisal of the prepackaged alternatives of organized religions was also not an acceptable alternative. You surprised me by suggesting integrity, depth, and honesty to an evangelical Christian approach, which I think is entirely fair, by the way Your argument was consistent but led you to a dangerous no man's land in the middle of a war zone. So not only were you a little confused but also a little nervous of the friends on both sides taking potshots at you whenever you broke their diverse "commandments."
My thoughts on the substance of what you said
My impression of you was of an honest agnostic trying to navigate his way through a bewildering data landscape. The discussion was very much an intellectual one rather than grounded in concrete experience and action. You appeared like a spectator to the discussion rather than an active participant. The friends you described were armed with theological convictions, woke viruses and fake ideologies, but you were somehow just sitting in a no-man's land watching the missiles fly overhead. You were more Greek than Jewish, the thrill of a good new story holding an attraction rather than the repetition of righteous action and the grounding of a life in a practical context. Your context and experience were mainly missing here and there was an abstraction to your thoughts on this question.
Your critique of liberal individualism intrigued me. In many ways, you write like a liberal individualist, respecting no authorities except solid material ones or products of your reflective process and decision. On the other hand, you are critical of this position. You expressed the understanding that DIY, mix-and-match religious choices and picking religious modules off the shelf to graft into amateurish and subjective holistic programs is always going to be a lightweight alternative to prepackaged organized religions with their millennia-old reflections and integrality on the big questions. But you thought it obvious that you had the weight to dismiss convictions held by the big guns and that these errors excused your non-participation in their organizations. So the war rages all around you, and the armchair in no-man's land seems the only logical choice.
My best friend is Jesus, I regard Him as the benchmark of reality, the perfect example of the true life. So, the Truth is intensely personal at heart for me. It is a simple matter of trust to ask "What would Jesus do?" or indeed say, as a guide for working out truth in a complicated world. I listen for His voice because the others seem like foolish noise, and when I have listened to those other guys, they have generally led me to a bad place. Very often, the right decisions, actions and verbal pronouncements are not clear to me. So I pray and I listen to the only voice that matters to me whether written in scripture, demonstrated in the best examples of the church, or prompted by the Spirit who reminds us of the things that Jesus said and did and who applies them to our lives.
Scientists often appear to me to be debating trivia about stuff that will never impact upon their lives, cannot be proven with the scientific method and they miss a truer focus on One who can guide us through deep personal crisis, wars, hunger, homelessness, relational crisis and every other human situation that we experience on our own personal rollercoaster journeys. That does not mean I consider the scientific endeavor a fruitless one; quite the opposite, it just needs to be brought into a proper perspective. I agree wholeheartedly with you that science, expert detective training, and a good historical method go a long way to resolving many kinds of disputes. When scientists go off down the rabbit hole of speculation about things out of the scope of the scientific method and unprovable by that method, they sabotage the credibility of their "factual" approach. Many modern critiques of organized religion boil down to this exaggeration of effective scope. Also, we can all learn a lot from a good detective story, particularly the kind that overthrows the presuppositions we entertain at the beginning of the story, with stuff that we never thought to look at until we heard the ending. Maybe life is like that, with God as the author of the dramas we inhabit. We assume too much and our thoughts are forever being overthrown by a greater mind. My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. The immanent characters in His dramas only truly come alive and start to live out their fuller callings when they start talking to the transcendent author directly.
This was the best entry of the bunch in this month's contest. S,o congratulations on your victory.
Mechanical issues
Another immaculate presentation. I liked the way you wrote this, which was personal and engaging. You kept my interest while navigating some heavy material.
Thanks again for entering.
LightinMind 
"My Philosophy of Rating and Reviewing"
|
|