Fate has decreed that I have a close and ongoing association with a couple of people who might be described as hard left in their outlook. That is, they are thoroughgoing egalitarians whose morality is based on materialistic utilitarianism. I have nothing in common with these people but I am grateful that I have had this association because I have learnt a lot from it, and one of the things I have learnt is that if someone is wedded to a particular ideology there is literally nothing you can say that will shake them from that. Both these people (atheists, of course) pride themselves on being rational and scientific but both of them are emotionally bound to their ideology and use reason only when it supports that. Reason, in the limited form it is viewed today, can be made to support the leftist, egalitarian ethos but that is only because vast swathes of reality have been ruthlessly cut out of the picture. It is unreasonable to deny the spiritual, it is unreasonable to deny nature and biology and it is unreasonable to deny God but for these people and people like them a circular argument is all that is required. We cannot see spirit by material means therefore spirit cannot exist. What?
What do you do when you are confronted by people driven by ideology? First of all, you cannot argue with them. Any argument will generate a lot of heat but no light. You are operating from totally different root assumptions. Your first principles have nothing in common and unless that is acknowledged you will get nowhere. If it is acknowledged you have to ask them what their first principles are based on. They will probably say they are based on humanity. Then you might ask what is humanity? The point is that unless humanity has a spiritual origin it is of no consequence, a random assemblage of mindless forces with no coherent centre or actual integrity. What happens to such a thing simply doesn't matter because it isn't in any serious way real. If it is agreed humanity does have a spiritual origin then you must ask whether that should determine how we live and think and act. Does it mean we see our destiny in this world or is there a wider purpose which goes beyond this world and how we see ourselves at present? If spiritual is what we ultimately are then spiritual understanding is what we should be working towards and that means seeing everything in the light of the spiritual not its own light. Materialists are like people who only live at night and insist the moon is the source of its own illumination.
But really all this is irrelevant. People believe what they want to believe and if they don't want to believe in God then they won't. Leftists don't want to believe in God. Even when they do adopt a form of spirituality you will find that it is centred in the human being and how to bring benefit to that. I am not saying it is wrong to seek happiness. We are bound to do that. It is right and healthy to want to do so. But this should be in the light of the reality of God not as a personal agenda. The true spiritual believer wants to bring his soul into conformity with the reality of the Creator and his creation. The leftist, whether believer or not, wants to bring creation into conformity with the desires of his soul and will do everything to further that end. In this sense the leftist is always a materialist even when he follows a spiritual path.
You can't talk to ideologues because their ideology is their idol, their replacement for God. They will accuse the believer in God of having his own ideology and being no different to them, and nothing will persuade them that there is a world of difference between opening up the mind and heart to reality and creating one's own version of reality in line with one's own desires, one that may support and enable flaws in your character and in which sins are not sins. I realise that the believer will always bring something of himself to his beliefs but adding a few decorative touches to a building whose foundations are grounded in solid rock is not the same as building in sand. Some ideologies can contain elements of reality but they are still mental constructs not perceptions of truth and their mental aspect always dominates the reality aspect.
When all is said and done it is probably only experience that can change someone whose mind has been contaminated by an ideology. Arguing is useless. Example might be better but really it is only the consequences of wrong thinking that will help to bring about right thinking. However, bear in mind that most ideologues have adopted their ideology to rationalise and justify a character defect. This is an uncomfortable truth and why it can be hard to argue with a leftist without, in the end, getting personal. So it is best avoided.
8 comments:
I've come to wonder how effective argument is in any situation. I'm pretty well entrenched in my main opinions and the noise of argument is as meaningless as shell-bursts over a secure bunker. This is largely a function of age. I've probably heard every atheist argument I am capable of understanding. They didn't affect me the first time and are unlikely to affect me twenty-second time. I suppose old atheists feel the same way about arguments for theism. This may be one reason conversations grow more trivial as one ages.
You'll get no argument from me there!
It seems like the appeal of modern leftism and mass media is that they give you permission to blast hatred and rage at individuals and groups without any restraint or hesitation. It's as if you are invited to believe absurd, obvious lies, and the "deal with the Devil" is that you will be given a face and a name or a type of person that you can demonize to your heart's content. Unlike Christianity, modern Leftism doesn't believe that everyone is fully human, that all sins can be forgiven, and that anyone can be redeemed.
Very hard to get someone to give this kind of thing up, especially when it's backed up by exponentially-expanding self-righteousness and pride.
"Any argument will generate a lot of heat but no light."
What an excellent way of putting it! Very memorable. I'm probably going to steal this sentence in the future, with the appropriate citation, of course!
Actually Frank I suspect I may have borrowed this myself though I've no idea where from.
Brilliantly described William.
It does seem to boil down to truth vs lies, or put
another way, reality vs stories.
Although im not sure we can escape the stories and lies as
they seem necessary for our possibility to know God. The problem
arises when we worship them, or mistake a tile for the whole mosaic.
No ideologue takes their ideology with a pinch of salt I've found.
It's easy to fall into "generating heat but no light". A lot of heat has been generated in the US this past week. I've fallen into the trap of getting emotionally invested in ultimately system based arguments.
Jesus never wasted time arguing w/ the Pharisees or entered debates. He simply presented Himself. This doesn't mean to give up on others. Rather, focus on presenting the truth and being a beacon of light. It's hard to do this, but we have to let God be God. He is the one who convicts hearts. Listening to much of the political discourse in the past week has sometimes left me feeling like John wanting to call down thunder from heaven. Of course, Christ reminded John about what spirit he was of. Stand for the truth, but do not get down in the mud.
Discourse but don't mislead and don't get lost. There is very little that people will allow enter into their private minds that they don't entangle themselves.
_____
Ask yourself who, or what, or why are you, and the best answers are, "I am," simply said, and, "I do not know."
Each merit more wonder than thinking allows. Taking the second path, the latter, "I do not know," unfolds into broad patterns that are easily perceptible if one is of the right type, made of the right stuff to-say. It lends one to accept something like an inheritance. One can gradually accept that they are less of what they have done in life, and the esteem that gathers around other people, and more of something that exists apart but makes everything more complete. That one is able to admit un-knowing is a power that stays with one all life long, useful for any-thing, and necessary for who, or what, or why anything is, because all of these are at least known to be anchored, steadfast in that which has produced them. All have a cause, an inheritance, or else no-thing must have ever been and that is clearly silly because we are certainly living.
The first path, the former mentioned, "I am," is a contest in those who are truly weak, but a password that keeps secret in those who have found that strength. Egotism and intuition will ruin any knowing so long as the former is not reined by the latter.
Post a Comment