The Debate

I am not understanding some things, so I began having a ‘thought discussion’ with one who disagrees with certain ideas and beliefs I hold deeply. This other is a friend, I believe, though certainly from my point of view. I decided to blog the thing, both to get it straight in my mind and to put it forth for review. Some of this discussion is based upon real discussions, other parts are fictional.

When discussing morality, my friend indicated he believes in morality. So, I asked for a definition of morality. Well, he thought and then said, it is doing good, or the right thing. Ok, but that does not really codify the topic. Is there a set of principles by which you base this goodness or righteousness on, or is it merely what you perceive at any given moment? Well, it seems, one just knows these things, he suggests. So, is it your parents who give these data to you, or the world at large, your peers, and with confliction of notion, how do you decide which data is true. The conversation ended without any clarification, merely a restatement that one not only should but must do the right thing.

I saw no reason to further examine the definition of goodness, so I moved to the source of goodness, or the source of the knowledge of rightness. I posited that, without a unique source of knowledge and certainty about what is good and right, this knowledge really is based on individual perceptions (which are flawed and malleable, go watch a magician then imagine how much “magic” is happening outside of said shows) and upon one’s own self interest (which is worse than even perception). Courts could not do their work, laws could not be upheld, and teachers could not teach without some clearly defined moral goals, processes, and means of enactment (as can clearly be seen in our modern world, though that is another topic) if everything was based purely upon perception and self interest. If I robbed a bank and took $30,000 dollars in the process, was caught, brought in, and tried, I could easily say that the bank itself lost no money, it was other people’s money and insured at that. The other people, all told, lost only a fraction of my gain. Further, the insurance covering the bank lost no money as it makes more in profits than losses (otherwise it would be bankrupt and replaced). Therefore, the greater good of the one, my gain, outweighs the very minor if existent losses of the many. I would have to be set free, the stolen money returned (with interest, I would not be a charitable bank robber, business is business), and I would expect an apology in the mail. Right?

I might suggest, as he is a programmer, that he understand that a library is not only a good way to go, but in many cases, it is the only way to go. If one is writing a complex program with which to control a device, one is not ever given the money, time, and man-labor to create some of the more complex mathematical process subroutines which might be required. Beyond, they have already been created, often it is hoped, by truly competent mathematicians dedicated to the area within the art which is required for the system. Why, if such is being done for simple appliances, would this library concept not be done for something vastly more complex, that is, life? And this would be true, regardless if their was a God or not, it would be presumed.

My point is, if he really does believe in doing the right thing, he must have a source of correctness that is not habited within him, or within any collective group of people, or anything else which is changeable, variable, flawed, or losable. It must be from a source outside of that. Barring God, all other things we know fail to sustain any such permanency. Further, from the few things he did indicate were good, I suggested that these were Christian based, some dating to the Jewish faith. I asked why he and his non-believing cohorts had not arrived at their own principles of good and evil, written a book, and developed a following based on even simple principles (say, Confucianism) which lasted any significant time or where sustainable in all environments.

I suggested that every attempt to create such a system failed, to be remanded to history, and every attempt at legalizing morality (with or without well meaning or poorly proposed invocations of God) failed, and miserably. The more stringently enforced, such as communism, socialism, feminism, Islam, Calvinism (the first police state, Protestantism meets (creates?) socialism perhaps), and others all failed or are about to fail, yet have left un-Godly amounts of pain, social chaos, torture, murder, and mass murder in their wake. Some have been so atrocious that they are being unwritten as we speak (try to find pictures of the U.S.S.R.’s horrors on the web, look up Stalin in many dictionaries… a state leader of the former U.S.S.R.).

I did have another thought. He doubts God because of tests and trials, evil in the world, and the darkness that comes for him at times. I sense this, see it clearly, and know it myself. I would suggest this, though. As we entertain a difficult and arduous education, are we not paying very good money to be very sorely tested? Are we not groveling before books and writing on reams of paper in the hopes of a simple understanding and functional use? Could we possibly be doing this merely for money? No, we are doing what we can, probably should, and to be right with a world. We are gaining mastery to become new scientific artists based on a truth that if you can, you might have a moral obligation to do so. If we do this for the material world, why would we expect less from an extra-worldly teacher, especially our immortal Father? Perhaps I cannot always see why I should know the pains, doubts, troubles, and toils I know, but my faith that my Father has a reason for this, and my loving faith in my “brother” cum Savior to save me in spite of myself never fails. If I must cry to him at times, whether at times I fear Father so speak to “Brother”, or am angry at “Brother” so seek the Spirit, this does not diminish the full truth. And, yes, I am tested most sorely, I am beset, I cannot trust many who I give honest trust, yet I can trust that being my best is worthy if only to God.

I do not worry for him, or his. I do hope he finds his way home. It is cold out there. It is alone. It is evil, and often. Even in the fold, our hands, eyes, and perception may deceive us should we fall to sloth, lust, greed, or the others. Yet within the fold, it is easier and quicker to sense error and correct it. And to know we can only correct our own erroneous ways. I hope all find a home, or at least the capacity for good, love in it’s purer form, and perhaps see rightness as it is, not as the candy stores of Ought to Be.

Be well.