RSS
True vs. "true"
- Objectivism (11) : The truth is out there
- Skepticism (46) : The truth is elusive
- Relativism (41) : The "truth" is in here
John Dann MacDonald on Belief said...
A Deadly Shade of Gold (G.K. Hall: 1987), p. 57.
I know just enough about myself to know I cannot settle for one of
those simplifications which indignant people seize upon to make
understandable a world too complex for their comprehension. Astrology,
health food, flag waving, bible thumping, Zen, nudism, nihilism — all
of these are grotesque simplifications which small dreary people adopt
in the hope of thereby finding The Answer, because the very concept
that maybe there is no answer, never has been, never will be, terrifies
them.
The Great Divorce (Simon & Schuster: 1946), 44.
I can promise you none of these things. No atmosphere of inquiry, for I
will bring you to the land not of questions but of answers, and you
shall see the face of God. "Ah, but we must all interpret those
beautiful words in our own way! For me there is no such thing as a
final answer. The free wind of inquiry must always continue to blow
through the mind, must it not? Prove all things, to travel hopeful is
better than to arrive." If that were true, and known to be true, how
could anyone travel hopefully? There would be nothing to hope for. "But
you must feel yourself that there is something stifling about the idea
of finality? Stagnation, my dear boy, what is more soul-destroying than
stagnation?" You think that, because hitherto you have experienced
truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can
taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom. Your
thirst shall be quenched.
The Great Divorce (Simon & Schuster: 1946), 44.
You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water, inquiry for truth.
What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to
do with the ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation
has to do with marriage.
Surprised by Joy (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: 1955), 63.
The other religions were not even explained, in the earlier Christian
fashion, as the work of devils. That I might, conceivably, have been
brought to believe. But the impression I got was that religion in
general, though utterly false, was a natural growth, a kind of endemic
nonsense into which humanity tended to blunder. In the midst of a
thousand such religions stood our own, the thousand and first, labeled
"True". But on what grounds could I believe in this exception? It
obviously was in some general sense the same kind of thing as all the
rest. Why was it so differently treated? Need I, at any rate, continue
to treat it differently? I was very anxious not to.
Carl Jung on Subjectivism said...
The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.
The God Who Is There, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), p119.
Why should God not communicate propositionally to man, the verbalizing
being, whom he made in such a way that we communicate propositionally
to each other? Therefore, in the biblical position there is the
possibility of verifiable facts involved: a personal God communicating
in verbalized form propositionally to man, not only concerning those
things man would call in our generation, religious truths, but also
down into the areas of history and science.
From a speech given in Paris at the Sorbonne in 1910
It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena;
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives
valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the
great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy
cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high
achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while
daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (LaSalle, III.: Open Court, 1966 [first published 1748]), p. 145.
[U]pon the whole, we may conclude that the Christian Religion not only
was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be
believed by any reasonable person without one.... Whoever is moved by
Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own
person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and
gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom
and experience.
John Locke on Disagreement said...
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Alexander Fraser (New York: Dover, 1959), vol. 1, p. 27.
The grounds of those persuasions which are to be found amongst men, so
various, different, and wholly contradictory; and yet asserted
somewhere or other with such assurance and confidence, that he that
shall take a view of the opinions of mankind, observe their opposition,
and at the same time consider the fondness and devotion wherewith they
are embraced, the resolution and eagerness wherewith they are
maintained, may perhaps have reason to suspect, that either there is no
such thing as truth at all, or that mankind hath no sufficient means to
attain a certain knowledge of it.
C.S. Lewis on Evading God said...
God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970)
But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you
haven't noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other
side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it
might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a
strange handwriting because they might be from Him — this is a
different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a
Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich,
hiding its head in the sand.
The God Who is There (1968), p. 90
In the face of this modern nihilism, Christians are often lacking in
courage. We tend to give the impression that we will hold on to the
outward forms whatever happens, even if god really is not there. But
the opposite ought to be true of us, so that people can see that we
demand the truth of what is there and that we are not dealing merely
with platitudes. In other words, it should be understood that we take
the question of truth and personality so seriously that if God were not
there we would be among the first of those who had the courage to step
out of the queue.
