Some Reasons Why This Christian is a NeverTrumpChristian

CqkjH1FVYAEZeGrDonald Trump recently came to Austin, TX where I reside. I decided to go to the rally with a friend and silently protest his candidacy for Presidency of the United States wearing a shirt that said #NeverTrumpChristian. (We even ended up in the Texas Monthly article entitled “What Does a Donald Trump Rally in Austin Look Like”. We are in the video near the bottom.) I decided to add the “Christian” part on my homemade shirt as a juxtaposition to the narrative in today’s society that seems to state that Evangelicals have no choice BUT to support Mr. Trump. You see, I am an Evangelical Christian who will not be voting for the Republican Nominee this year.

I am writing this post, not to tell about what happened (maybe another blog post for that – it is already up on my FB page.), but in response to a question that a very dear friend, a groomsman in my wedding in fact, asked me after the rally. It came about, a bit like this:

My wife posted on the Book of Face that she was proud of me “for braving the Trump rally”, and multiple friends, on both sides of the aisle (both political and religious and no I am not forgetting you my Libertarian friends… Your side of the aisle too.) made statements in support of my protest. My aforementioned dear friend (henceforth referred to as “Z”) asked on the thread “What are things you don’t like about Trump?”. I told Z that I would get back to him tomorrow (This was a little over a week ago, so I am running a bit behind). Later in the thread Z stated that “I’m confused why people on this post are proud of you for being this immature at a presidential candidate’s event? It must be an Austin thing.” We talked quite a bit more on the thread about why he thought that I was being immature, but I won’t bore you with those details here. I want to, as fully as I can, express my reasons for not only not supporting Mr. Trump, but for actively protesting his candidacy.

There many reasons that I oppose Mr. Trump but I would say that they fit into two main categories: Moral and Nationalistic. At times I am sure that I can conflate the two ( I am an American after all), but I will try my best to differentiate them in this post. The moral aspect is the reason that I added the “Christian” on end of my #NeverTrump shirt for the rally. I also have multiple friends and family that support Mr. Trump today and several that have said that they will probably end up voting for him for various reasons. So, although I disagree with their decision, this is not intended to be derisive or dismissive of any of the supporters of Mr. Trump. I simply want to start a conversation. Let’s get started:

Please understand while you read this that I do not consider myself a member or supporter of any political party. I will probably vote for some candidates on both side of the aisle in November and, at this point, never intend to join either party. Texas had a closed primary and in order for me to vote for an opponent of Mr. Trump, I registered as a Republican for this primary. The reason that I mention this fact is that many of the sources that I will be quoting are Republican sources or at least right leaning ones. For example, one of the most compelling reasons that I chose to not vote for Mr. Trump is that 121 members of the Republican national security community released this open letter (I was made aware of this letter because one of the signatories is an elder at my church. This was not brought up at church, it is just due to my friendship with him that I came across this article) in March that stated some very explicit objections to Mr. Trump and his candidacy. I encourage you to read the article in its entirety (it is very short) but here are the pieces that are most disconcerting to me personally:

  • “His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.” (I would add on here as well what I consider to be his aggressive support of war crimes by doubling down on his statements “to take out their (terrorists’) families.” My issue here is both of a moral and nationalistic nature.)
  • “His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.”
  • “He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.”

That covers (very briefly) some of the political/secular/nationalistic/American reasons that I so vehemently oppose Mr. Trump’s candidacy. There are many, many other examples of things that he has said or done that have convinced me to not vote for him and I may add to this as needed but I also want to focus on the most common argument that I have heard for why many of my friends and family have decided to (or are considering supporting) support Mr. Trump and why I feel that that justification is insufficient: You guessed it: SCOTUS nominations. I could make an effort to wax eloquent about my reasoning, but why do that when you know someone who is much more knowledgeable and eloquent who can do it for you.

John Seago (who I am about to quote) is the Legislative Director at Texas Right to Life, an organization that says that they “fight for the rights of the unborn (including the nascent humans created in laboratories), the disabled, the sick, the elderly, and the unloved in a world where the lack of respect for innocent human life has escalated to the point where we are all at risk.” So, simply put, this is not Planned Parenthood that we are talking about here. What I am about to share with you is John’s personal position. and not that of Texas Right to Life. I wanted to provide you with some background so you don’t simply think that “being imbedded in Austin has changed me” or that I joined a “movement that is driven by the environment you’re in down there in Austin”. (those are in quotations because my friend Z thinks that might be/is what motivated me to protest at the Trump Rally. It seems to me to be bordering on an ad hominem argument, but I wanted to address it nonetheless.)

Before I supply John’s quote, I wanted to provide two other articles (and a special bonus article) that I have read about this very issue. I tend to agree pretty strongly with multiple facets of both of these articles, which, if you read them, you will find that interesting because one is in direct opposition to the other. I don’t have the time/bandwidth to discuss my points of agreement in each article so I will just leave this here if you are interested. Both are worth a read and I hope that they make you think: Rachael Held Evans in this piece discusses many problems that she has with Mr. Trump, multiple moral and political stances that she holds personally and why they have convinced her to vote for Secretary Clinton (before you say anything, no I have not decided who I will be voting for in November. I do not agree that a “no” vote for Mr. Trump is the same thing as a “yes” vote for Secretary Clinton. But that is another post for another day.) And this piece by Jay Hobbs has his rebuttal to her stance on voting for Secretary Clinton but seems to be arguing for a “no vote” in November (although he does not explicitly say such). Now on to John’s quote which did a very good job at describing how my wife and I felt this election cycle. I have added in hyperlinks and emphasis that were not in the original post for your reading pleasure) Here is one more bonus article that, IMO, does a very good job at addressing the SCOTUS argument in great detail.

John introduces this lengthy post by stating that he and his wife “have personally concluded that we cannot in good conscience vote for Donald Trump”

“Some have argued since the next president will nominate at least two Supreme Court Justices that we must hold our nose and support Mr. Trump (It is true Mr. Trump released a very good list of individual he may nominate for SCOTUS, however the same day, characteristically, he said he could pick someone else not on the list). This argument kept us on the fence for several months, but we have realized, given the whole picture, this is not a compelling reason to support Mr. Trump (thankfully, two of the top experts in the Pro-Life movement I respect the most have thoroughly refuted this argument). Given Mr. Trump’s unpredictable nature, his record of changing his mind, contradicting himself publicly, taking five different positions on elective abortion within three days (not to mention his praise of Planned Parenthood, the organization that commits the most abortion in the US annually), and explaining these changes in position (being “flexible” in his term) are a virtue, there is no guarantee he will appoint an acceptable justice. Earlier I thought that I would vote for Mr. Trump to buy myself a SCOTUS lottery ticket, I may lose, but I may win. However, we have recently realized we would lose much more by supporting or even tolerating Mr. Trump.

We cannot in good conscience overlook Mr. Trump’s words, actions, and policy positions that promote injustice and attack the dignity of other human beings because we are hoping he will eventually assist us in promoting justice in our specific policy areas. The principles that cause us to fight for preborn children, pregnant women, and vulnerable patients require us to oppose Mr. Trump. On countless occasions he has spoken about individuals in ways that Speaker Paul Ryan admitted are the “textbook definition of racist comment[s],” Mr. Trump has a long and ugly record of sexist comments about women in general and has viciously attacked prominent females who criticize or challenge him, he has publicly mocked individuals with disabilities, he has encouraged his rally attenders to “knock the crap out of” any protestors, he has mocked “the weak,” and recommended banning individuals from entering the country because of their religion. These actions and views are entirely inconsistent with the principle we work to promote privately and in the public square: respect for the dignity and worth of every individual human being.

We cannot allow Mr. Trump to win and shape the Republican Party in his image, which will promote injustice, ignore the dignity of whole classes of individuals, and replace principles with political expediency. We do not want to encourage the rise of similar politicians (e.g. David Duke). Our opposition and the opposition of other conservatives will not cause us to lose this election in November. We have already lost. We lost by entertaining and tolerating Mr. Trump’s rhetoric, political strategy, and positions to gain such political traction. I hope that Mr. Trump loses in November and the party can return to our principles and character. We must lose the battle so that we may win the war. Brandy and I will still be supporting principled Republicans down the ballot and are committed to continuing to engage politics at other levels. However, we cannot vote for the Republican Presidential Candidate.

Like I said, much more eloquent and educated than I could write it. John’s is a much more Republican focus than mine is but our reasoning is the same. I am not concerned about what happens to either party, I don’t have a dog in that fight. I do however, choose to oppose Mr. Donald J. Trump in every way that I can because of what I believe to be very very large lapses in character, judgment, and critical thinking.

Again, I hope that this opens up discussion. I am not trying to say that if you chose to vote for Mr. Trump that you are stupid, or morally bankrupt, but rather, I disagree with you and would love to talk more. I have had many rich discussions (and some not so rich) with supporters of Mr. Trump and I feel that I understand their position much more than I did at the beginning of the primary season.

I will leave you with one final thought. If there is only ever one issue that will cause someone to make a decision, then that person becomes incredibly easy to manipulate and deceive. All one has to do is say “sure that is my position, now pick me”. That concerns me and I hope that we are not that easy to manipulate.

Feet Above



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Billionaire Boy’s club in educational reform

The following short article is another response that I wrote for my graduate class in Educational System Reform. Please feel free to let me know what you think!

A response to “The Death and the Life of the Great American School System”

by Diane Ravitch

I think that chapter ten of this book might have been the most sobering and eye-opening reading that I have done for this class. “The Billionaire Boys’ Club” is an apt title that really addresses a big issue in our educational system today. Ravitch puts it well when she says, “The (foundations) have taken it upon themselves to reform public education, perhaps in ways that would never survive the scrutiny of voters in any district or state. If voters don’t like the foundation’s reform agenda, they can’t vote them out of office. The foundations demand that public schools and teachers be held accountable for performance, but they themselves are accountable to no one… They are bastions of unaccountable power.” (p. 201). Now I have very little doubt that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation et al. has some very good intentions and ideas for improving education in America. But it can be more than a little scary when people in those organizations say that management is management and school leaders do not need to be educators (paraphrase from p. 213). A school is not simply a business and to try to run one as such can lead to some seriously misguided ideas and reforms.

This idea of educational reform really hit home for me while teaching at a small school on the bleeding edge of school reform and ideas. Our school has enjoyed tremendous success in almost every aspect that it is targeting; yet there are some severe limitations to what the students are able to do for extracurricular activities. The network that we are a part of would have you to believe that our school is so successful because it is Project Based Learning. I think that there is some, maybe even a lot of truth to that, but I think the largest reason that we see continued success is the strong culture in our school and the buy-in from teachers, students and parents. Unfortunately we also see some of the division talked about in the chapter with a bit of “us vs. them” mentality because we are constantly compared to the “other high school” in our district when we have a number of advantages that they do not and the comparisons are a bit like apples and oranges.

I really appreciated Ravitch’s perspective on charter schools. I have never had a problem with charter schools; think that they can be a great idea, in fact, but do not have any reason to believe that they are the panacea that certain interests would have us to believe. The most insightful quote that I have ever read about the charter school and running schools in a free market styles is when Ravitch states, “As consumers, we should be free to choose. As citizens, we should have connections to the place we live and be prepared to work together with our neighbors on common problems.” (p. 222)

I think that my largest take away from Ravitch is that there seems to be many ideas for reforms that are formed by people’s past experience and success and that, probably, none of them will in one fail swoop improve American education forever. Schools are a system and there are many variables within that system. Perhaps instead of blindly taking money and choosing to “drop everything and reorder their priorities” (p. 200), efforts to improve an imperfect system can be made through a well-thought out and sustainable process, which, unfortunately is easier said than done.     



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Frederick Douglass and Learning


It has been far too long since my last post and I wanted to write a bit about education. I am currently attaining my Master’s Degree in STEM Education and for my current class we had a reading from “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass”. The following is my written response that I will be turning in on Monday:

 I was very moved by the Douglass article in a number of ways. I was inspired yet discouraged.  I was elated and devastated. Douglass seems like such an awesome (read awe inspiring not “totally radical dude!”) figure throughout history yet his story is also full of sadness and repeated mistakes.

I think as an educator I was most inspired when Douglass talked of his growing desire to learn, as the words read, “The frequent hearing of my mistress reading the Bible aloud, for she often read aloud when her husband was absent, awakened my curiosity in respect to this mystery of reading, and roused in me the desire to learn. Up to this time I had known nothing whatever of this wonderful art, and my ignorance and inexperience of what it could do for me, as well as my confidence in my mistress, emboldened me to ask her to teach me to read.”

 Oh how I wish that my students could understand how beautiful and amazing the art of reading is. I feel as if my students, many times, treat knowledge as shackles rather than their freedom. Douglass was inspired to read and my students are inspired to say “No! I don’t read!” Where is the disconnect? Is it possible to inspire my students in that way? If so, how is it possible?

Just as quickly as I was inspired, I was discouraged by the vitriolic response of Mr. Auld.  “If he learns to read the Bible it will forever unfit him to be a slave. He should know nothing but the will of his master, and learn to obey it. As to himself, learning will do him no good, but a great deal of harm, making him disconsolate and unhappy. If you teach him how to read, he’ll want to know how to write, and this accomplished, he’ll be running away with himself.”  

Fredrick Douglass took this to heart and it instilled in him a “rebellion not soon to be allayed” and he later became the leader of the abolitionist movement and one of the most prominent orators of the day. He indeed ran away with himself in a way that I think that all of us would agree had positive influences in out society.

 What if students could have this same rebellion awakened in them when people tell them that they are not good enough or smart enough? What would happen if students would embrace knowledge as freedom and not as shackles? Is there any way that I can help instill in my students a desire for knowledge and not just a desire to graduate and be done with the game? How can we make our students care more about their knowledge and growth than their grades on a standardized test? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Skeptics and Believers can connect: from NY Times

This is an awesome article that echos some of what I have talked about and actually talks about some of what I am writing about in an upcoming post about Faith and Doubt. Please let me know what you think.

Link | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

My Arguments: A Brief Confession

In the spirit of being honest as the title of my blog suggests, I want to confess something that I have noticed about myself. I, despite how hard I try, at times have difficulty listening to people that I disagree with. I think it is very common (but maybe I’m just projecting) that instead of trying to understand what someone is talking about I immediately look for ways to show them why they are wrong, and more importantly, that I am right. Guess what happens to the conversation when two or more people with the same method take opposite sides of a conversation!

Anyway, I PLAN to make a stronger effort to understand people and what they say before I react to it. My wife, while reading over this, tells me that my personal focus in this area needs to be 1) listening to others as opposed to waiting for them to take a breath and interject my own thoughts and 2) listening to someone else fully instead of simply formulating my responses while they are speaking. I have found myself being much less arrogant, condescending, and flat out rude when I take the time to think about my response. That may mean that I don’t “win” an argument, but does anyone ever win one of those? When was the last time everyone else at the table said “You know what? You were right and I was wrong. Thanks for sharing.”?

On a similar note, this article from Scientific American gave me a lot to think about in disagreements both online and off.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On Truth: A Continuation, or Rather, a Clarification

In considering my last blog post concerning truth I believe that I did not fully clarify a very important point. That being, that while I do think that two, mutually exclusive, truths cannot exist simultaneously, two different truths can. Let me see if I can unpack a bit of what I mean. 

Suppose that John Doe says, “God clearly does not exist”. His friend Jane Doe says, “I disagree, God does indeed exist.” They cannot both be correct. Those views are mutually exclusive, that is, the veracity of one, by necessity, means the other is erroneous. Now, they could both be wrong, somehow, but there is no way that they could both be correct concurrently. This may also be said about the age of the universe. The universe cannot be both 10,000 years and 15 billion years old concurrently. This is an issue that I am looking at intently and trying to be honest in my perspective and will address in a later blog.

Now there may be some adventurous objections at this point such as the Multi Universe Hypothesis or something along those lines. I don’t want to get too much into that unless it is needed. I do want to say, however, that while mutual exclusivity negates concurrent existence, two different things can be true at the same time. As much as I would prefer it, everything is not black and white in this, our world. Many times, truth can be on both sides of an issue. I think we do truth and ourselves a disservice to claim that our view is the only possible one. I am not advocating to never believe in anything or to believe in everything. Instead I am saying that whatever you do believe, try to make every effort to do so with all humility. Please understand that I am speaking to myself when I say this rather than standing before you as a paragon of humility.

This can be especially obvious in politics, religion, art, and even music preference. Let me try to give an uncontentious and rather famous example of what I mean. Stop me if you have heard it: Some blind men were walking along and came upon and elephant that they were able to touch. One grabbed the tail and said “Oh, this elephant is long and flexible like a snake”, another grabbed the leg and said, “no this elephant is thick like a tree”. The third touched the side and said “you are both wrong, he is clearly thick and flat like a wall” and so on… None of them were able to get the complete picture. This is a perfect example of “both and” being true. They all were correct but so were their friends. I must point out something very important here. Please do not take this to mean that no truth can be known. This will quickly backfire on you if you do. The story is told from the point of view of an outside observer. How can you know that they do not see the whole elephant unless you are able to? The truth is that the elephant is…elephant shaped which is made up of many parts. The truth exists, but is made of many parts.

This concept of “both and” should not be a new concept for anyone. If you are a scientist then quantum mechanics demonstrates this beautifully. If a Christian, the kindness and severity of God is a very common theme. A teacher realizes that a classroom is both organic and industrial at the same time. The truth can be in the middle of many extremes, but the truth still exists. The breakdown comes when we arrogantly say “I know all of truth and it is summed up like this…”

I think that this happens all too readily in our society where we say, “only what I believe is true” and by doing this we negate viewing another perspective. Yes, I see the irony of this as I write about my own viewpoint in this blog. But, can you imagine what our society would look like if we had dialogue, and not diatribe; conviction, without contempt; respect, lacking repulsion? I would like to propose that we acknowledge that we have differences and acknowledge that we might not be right about everything and then have open discussions about truth. I would LOVE any feedback that you have to offer and lets hash this out together and not divided. Lets help each other pursue truth and learn from one other.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On The Existence of Truth

If you read my first blog post, you may have noticed a common theme that I kept prattling on about. I kept mentioning the word “truth”. Why would I keep bringing that up? Why is it so important to me? Can anyone ever know what truth is? Why should I care? I think these are all valid and reasonable questions that deserve, beg even, to be answered.

Please keep in mind as I delve into this and other topics that I am not a professional philosopher by any stretch of the imagination. I do believe that we are all, of necessity, philosophers in some manner. Everyone has some form of philosophy that we abide by and evaluate other ideas and philosophies. The evaluation of philosophies and living our lives by them, by definition, makes us all philosophers. Many people, myself included, call these life philosophies “Word Views”. I must at this juncture point out that just as dribbling a basketball, by definition, makes one a basketball player but does not necessitate any skill; using philosophy does not make anyone inherently a skilled philosopher. Just because we use it, does not mean we use it well.

Here, then is my effort to be as skilled as I can be in this philosophical issue of truth. Now to acknowledge my bias and preconceived ideas to keep them at the forefront of my mind, I admit that I have always dismissed postmodernism and its moral relativistic leanings outright. I have rarely heard the concepts spoken of with anything other than derision when talking of the philosophical concept due to its circular nature. While the philosophy itself can be derided, many of my friends have said something akin to “well that may be true for you” or “there is no such thing as absolute truth”. So where does this disconnect come from?

Generally at this point I would launch into a diatribe about how intellectually lazy it is to make an absolute statement about there being no absolutes, but this time I wanted to, instead of attacking something I don’t agree with to stroke my ego, make an effort to understand why so many intelligent people have such divergent views on this very important topic. Why do we disagree about truth and its possibility?

Before we continue, we should make sure we are on the same page with our vocabulary. When I say relativism I could mean anything from Einstein, to language, to morals, but I am probably not talking about your cousin (relative –sorry, bad joke). One great resource that I have found for defining philosophical concepts is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (EoP). While sometimes a bit dense, it can be helpful to use as a standard for philosophy concepts and vocabulary. Based on that website and a synthesis of other sources I would define relativism as the belief that morals, truth and their justification are not absolute. Rather they are relative to different people or groups of people. There are many more facets than that, and like most beliefs or philosophies individuals who espouse them lie upon a continuum, but for the sake of discussion, when I say moral relativism this is what I am referring to. This is the metaethical moral relativism perspective.

The Stanford EoP gives a great example of this in their description. They say that in an issue such as polygamy it may be “morally wrong” relative to one society and not to another. That judgment itself may be justified in one society and not in another. Proponents then generally say that since there is no rational way to resolve the differences the justifications are relative to societies and people rather than absolute. There are moralities rather than one single morality.

On the EoP Moral Relativism page it has a quote that is a much more eloquent form of a statement that I have already made: “Moral relativism has the unusual distinction—both within philosophy and outside it—of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone.” As it happens, I had just read a paper entitled “Moral Relativism Explained” by Gilbert Harman of Princeton who was an author mentioned in the article as a prominent defender of Moral Relativism.

When I read Harman’s paper I was exposed to several new ideas that I had never considered because I dismissed relativism outright. It was very enlightening seeing what a prominent proponent of the idea had to say. He says, very openly, that he does “not suppose that these considerations will be persuasive to those who do not already accept it.” I found that statement to be very insightful about our society in how we take in new information. He was right in my regards, anyway. While it did not convince me, it produced in me a respect for the people who espouse the point of view that I was lacking before. If interested, I would suggest that you read the article with a goal of understanding him rather than proving him right or wrong.

Harman states, “The main reason to believe there is not a single true morality is that there are major differences in the moralities that people accept and these differences to not seem to rest of (sic) actual differences in situation or disagreements about the facts.” What I understand him to be saying as a moral relativist is that when people evaluate an idea or event they do not disagree on what happened or the facts, but, rather, whether it was moral or not. Since there appears to him to be “no objective way of settling these disagreements” this lends to an argument in favor of moral relativism.

I do not have time in this blog to summarize his whole paper, but I would encourage you to read it if you are interested. As I said, I gained a new respect and understanding for individuals who espouse this belief, but, as Harman thought, I was not convinced. I want to spend the rest of this entry discussing why I do think there is truth out there and why it is such a valuable pursuit. I want to be clear that I realize that I am including multiple different facets in this argument. I know that postmodernism, moral relativism, and the belief in no absolutes are not the same thing, but I do see a lot of overlap in how truth is viewed so I am including them together for brevity. As always, if you take issue with this please let me know.

Taken to its most extreme conclusions, relativism can say that no opinion is better than any other. That argument, to quote Douglas Adams out of context, “disappears in a puff of logic”. Relativism, like all views, seems to operate under some preconceptions. A big one I picked up by Harman was that objective judgment seems to determine truth. That is, since we cannot objectively state that something is wrong or right and that other societies or people may disagree this leads to the conclusion that there must not be universal morality. This to me seems to be assuming knowledge outside the problem. In other words he is making what he must believe to be an objective statement about an issue that no one can make objective statements about a problem. While he does allow for the “possibility of certain moral universals just as there seem to be linguistic universals” he clearly believes that many of our judgments are subjective, and as a result not valid.

Taking this argument to its extreme again, why do we even address Nazi Germany as morally wrong if it is simply a societal morality? We cannot make moral statements about that because we are not objective (Harman addresses this when he says, “One can reject the idea that there is a single true morality, yet still have or participate in a morality (or moralities)”. Harman says,  “In trying to think about moral relativism, it is useful to keep in mind the many differences in the moralities that people accept and live by.” I would say it another way. “In trying to think about moral relativism, it is useful to keep in mind the many differences in what people consider to be moral.” I think there are very few people who would say, while watching this this Video about a nanny abusing a child that what that woman is doing to the baby is simply her morality. I think most people would consider it to be wrong. I think it is very easy to believe in the absence of an absolute moral truth until we are exposed to something that we believe is wronged. How often do I consider myself to be wronged every day by other drivers, by students, by coworkers etc?

Now, I must admit that I, as a Christian, also assume prior knowledge and take myself out of the issue. I believe that God has said what is morally right and thereby removed the need for objective judgment to determine reality. The interpretation of what God has said can be divisive and difficult so this must also be taken with a grain of salt. I know that this may not be considered rational by many of the people reading this but I am either wrong or I am right. If I believe in this God and you do not, either I am wrong, you are wrong, or somehow, we are both wrong. Those are our options when dealing with truth and that is why I think it is so valuable to search for it.

Before you think that you must either be a moral relativist or a theist I would send you to this article. No one would accuse the British Humanist Society of theism yet they have some very striking, and I believe, compelling arguments against relativism. The article outlines the author’s perspective on relativism and the three motives that he believes have caused the rise of it in our society. The article concludes with this statement: “There can only ever be one truth. Independence of mind, politeness and objectivity are the virtues that we, and our students, need in order to look for it.”

To truly address this issue and say more than virtually nothing about it, I would have to write a book. This only the tip of the iceberg but I hope it gives you something to think about. I hope that I have explained why I believe truth is a valuable thing to search for and why I think it exists. I hope that I have honestly represented both sides of the issue; especially that side with which I happen to disagree. Finally I hope that this will open us up for more respectful dialogue in our search for truth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments