My Goal is to make sense of things, and help others do the same. Sometimes, when in the ocean, a powerful wave pounds me into the surf. For a few eternal seconds, I don't know which direction is up. At times, life can have the same effect on a person. When confusion comes crashing down, I am compelled to reorient myself and establish equilibrium. That is why I blog. Hopefully readers will gain from the process as well.
In order to accomplish my goal, I follow certain guidelines or premises:
Premise 1: For people, but against bad ideas: In general, bad ideas usually involve people exploiting others for personal gain. People, treating others like animals while acting like animals themselves. Exploitation is often masked in some sort of “righteous cause”. But a closer look reveals that many "righteous causes" are a mechanism for personal gain. I will always hate exploitation, but not the person doing it. I can vehemently disagree with your words, and still want what is best for you. More on this later.
Preface 2: Humility: I'm always ready to revise or retract. I've had a lot on my mind for a long time. But, when trying to understand "what truth is" and "what is true," there's always another book to read, another angle. It has kept me from sticking my words out there. I've always had this notion that one day I will read enough books and satisfy all my questions. At that point, I'll be able to communicate my thoughts in a straight line. Not going to happen. Nothing in my life has been straight, (except my sexuality). Why would I ever expect it to happen now, or now, or even now? So, I'm going to take a scoop right out of the center of the pie and work my way to the edge.
Preface 3: Credibility: Always consider the source Part 1: In college, one of my favorite classes was Literary Criticism. One of the first principles discussed was the integrity of the Critic. Before you give credence to someone's critique, evaluate whether they are credible enough to even offer criticism. It's easy to spout an opinion, but validation? Not so much. This principle applies across the board. Just because someone has letters after their name, does not automatically make their opinion valid. Give me something to collaborate your opinion. Intellectually, I'm from Missouri. Many "smart" people just don't make sense. Their emotional bias gets in the way of their intellect.
Preface 4: “Fact Crammers”: Always consider the source part 2: Is someone looking at the evidence in order to find the truth, or are they trying to cram the facts into their presupposition? It is common knowledge that one can twist the facts to produce a desired outcome. My observation is that many presuppositions are based on some sort of emotional pain. People must come up with an explanation for the suffering they've endured. (Part of the issue may be that their “theology of suffering” could be flawed. More on that later). It's not easy to suspend your presuppositions due to the screaming experiences of life, but I try. I ask others to do the same. When someone speaks, test whether they are "truth-seekers" or "fact-crammers."
Premise 5: “Blowers”: Always consider the source Part 3: It is apparent that many people, particularly behind the protection of the Internet, are intent on aggravating others. My intent is to gain understanding. This process often involves serious debate. Great! Let's engage. But those who intend to gratuitously blow things up will be nixed.
Premise 6: “Bouncers”: It is also apparent that some people don’t like tough questions. There are many fallacies in the world of debate. I’m no expert, so I’ve made up my own word. A bouncer is somewhere in-between a straw man, an ad hominem, & a Red Herring. When someone doesn’t want to answer a direct question, they throw or “bounce” it right back at you in order to avoid answering. For example, when debating with some of my Muslim friends regarding whether Islam is violent or peaceful, I might say something like, “how do you explain the bloody Jihad during the first 1,000 years of Islam?” Instead of addressing the question, they might say something like, “What about the Crusades? They were violent, etc. etc.” Irrelevant! We’re not comparing religions. We’re discussing whether violence is a hallmark of Islam or not. But, unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20. Why don’t these great thoughts come to me at the time, right? (More on this later).
Premise 7: Jack-of-all-trades, master of none: I am not an expert. I’m not a scientist, philosopher, archeologist, theologian, prophet, or scholar. I’m a fellow traveler who looks around and has a lot of questions. I don’t have 100 lifetimes to study all of my interests. But that’s why people right books, right? I draw from scientists, philosophers, archeologists, theologians, Prophets and scholars. I also learn from children. The key is validation. An author once said, the greatest question is Authority. Who says?
Which Book, author, or speaker is credible? Whom do we believe? (This is a subject I will discuss thoroughly at another time). For now, validation is sufficient. Many people have invested thousands and thousands of hours trying to figure out what this life is all about. I intend to learn and draw from them. As Eugene Levy’s character, Dr. Pearl in the movie, Waiting For Guffman, said, “People say, ‘you must have been the class clown.’ And I say, ‘no, but I sat next to the class clown, and I studied him…” I am not the expert, but I’ve studied them. I will do my best to rely on them and to validate my entries.
