What if I’m wrong…
Some thoughts, writing while sick and distracted isn’t the easiest…
‘Isa: […] You equivocated between value–opinions and values, between opinions about what’s right or wrong and what’s really right or wrong. You see, different cultures may have different opinions about what’s morally right and wrong, just as they have different opinions about what happens after death […] What’s believed to be right and what really is right aren’t necessarily the same, just as what’s believed to exist after death and what really exists aren’t necessarily the same. We can be wrong about it. Just because I may believe there is no hell doesn’t mean there is none of that I won’t go there … [1]
I’m sure we could extend the above to include religious or philosophical inclinations, in fact, I think we will.
There are a lot of bad philosophical systems out there. I don’t mean bad as in morally wrong, but bad as in poorly reasoned and supported. The mark of a lot of these philosophies is self-contradiction. I first heard the argument, ‘You believe in X because you were brought up in culture C’ from Richard Dawkins, yet I’m sure it wasn’t him who first formulated it. Mind you, it’s the sort of poor reasoning entirely consistent with his philosophy. The first thing about this is that it’s a self-contradiction. Isn’t this view but one more among a plethora of views that are the result of culture? It is with this an empty answer; it neither disproves nor proves belief X. Equally, if it is claimed that it is not a product of a specific culture, then it should be said that if Dawkins (for instance) was able to break his conditioning, why shouldn’t anyone else be able to? Ravi Zacharias is an operational example of this breaking of cultural conditioning. Are not those Christians who become atheists further example of this? Believing otherwise (that one can’t break their culture) seems entirely unreasonable to me.
If one is a lover of wisdom, I don’t see why being brought up with X beliefs should be any obstacle to the truth, assuming one is sincere.
Especially when one is answering the question, ‘What if you’re wrong?!’ Seems strange to me why you would answer the question in such a wrong, convoluted way when it’s much easier just to say, straight forwardly, ‘well if I’m wrong then I’m wrong and subject to consequences’. Then again, I guess that depends if you believe we can know truth… Speaking of self-contradictory philosophies.
A better thought tomorrow.…
[1] Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism (San Francisco: Ignatious press, 1999), 82.
Related posts:
