“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love and of a sound mind.” – II Timothy 1:7 KJV
2023 Logan Preaching Mission
D. Larry Gregg, PhD
Earlier we explored Respect and Reconnaissance as the keys to effective communication among those wishing to live together in harmony and hope. This evening we must explore the “R’s” of Rationality and Reality; the keys to effective thinking and living on the part of the same persons. My basic premise is that harmony and hope within human relationships is not the product of happenstance. Rather, harmonious relationships contributing to the achievement of commonly shared hopes are the consequence of careful thought and a clear understanding of what is achievable given our collective aspirations and resources. Life is too complex and positive human interactions are far too important to be left simply to hoping for the best.
For persons to live harmoniously and hopefully in a complex world, it seems to me that thoughtful persons must ask and answer a number of questions in order to determine the rationality of their thinking. This observation is supported by the insights of both traditional Christian conviction and contemporary atheistic thought. The seminal early Christian theologian, Augustine of Hippo, observed, “If we did not have rational souls, we would not be able to believe.” As one of the originators of the credo ut intelligam (faith seeking understanding) stream of Christian reflection, Augustine clearly believed that deeply held faith and careful intellectual reflection were not opposites; rather, they were siblings. In another place he observed, “Everybody who believes, thinks, — both thinks in believing, and believes in thinking.” In the same vein, but not expressed in the language of religious faith, Ayn Rand observed, “To irrational principles, one cannot be loyal. Ideas that are not derived from reality cannot be consistently practiced in reality.” Because I agree with both this Christian and this atheistic thinker, I propose that there are at least four questions that must be asked and answered in order to determine true rationality when expressing our own judgments, or when assessing the validity of the judgments of others.
The first question is, “Are these concepts and beliefs coherent; do they make sense both to me and to others?” The English word “coherence” is based upon the Latin word coharentia meaning “to stick together.” The English mathematician and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, held that coherence means that “the fundamental ideas, in terms of which the scheme (i.e. religion, political philosophy, ethical system, economic theory, etc.) is developed, presuppose each other, so that in isolation they are meaningless.”
A major impediment to rationality in our thinking is the tendency to “cherry pick” opinions, principles for living, and beliefs from the vast buffet of concepts and truth claims surrounding us without exploring whether they are intellectually, spiritually, and socially palatable when consumed together. This “pieces/parts” approach to thinking often leads to behaviors such an eclectic process cannot support. It is not necessary to agree or disagree with a particular set of assertions to determine whether or not they “stick together” with logical consistency. Houses of cards collapse when the breeze blows, and Humpty Dumpty doomed himself by choosing to sit on the wall.
Next question; are these beliefs, ideas, and assertions non-contradictory? The philosophical Principle or Law of Non-Contradiction is at least as ancient as the thought of Aristotle. He said, “Two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same way.” One of my favorite musical movies is Fiddler on the Roof. In one scene Tevye is in conversation with other men who have gathered and are discussing Torah. He mistakenly attributes a sayings to an ancient teacher and is immediately challenged by one of his companions. Tevye responds, “You’re right.” A moment later a diametrically opposite assertion is made to which Tevye responds once again, “You’re right.” A third man says, “They can’t both be right at the same time” to which Tevye responds yet again, “You’re right.”
If one sought to characterize the world of the early 21st century with a single word that word could easily be “contradiction.” The human mind’s capacity to simultaneously embrace and defend contradictory truth claims is astonishing. One must note only the gun obsessed disciples of the “Prince of Peace,” or the book banning proponents of free speech for themselves while silencing others, or those who decry voter fraud while denying the authenticity of free and fair elections when they lose to illustrate this point.
Third question; do my beliefs/points of view correspond to reality as commonly perceived? Some years ago I attended a conference devoted to understanding what is taking place in the consciousness of an Alzheimer’s victim. The leader pointed out the futility of trying to logically argue with mom or dad or your spouse’s mistaken perceptions of reality and their confusion of the past with the present. She said, “What you’ve got to understand is that you are both living in the present; they are just different presents.”
The unfortunate circumstances of the person suffering from dementia, and the struggles of those who love them to adequately care for them, deserve compassionate understanding and support. What is unacceptable is the intentional and malicious construction of alternative perceptions of reality by some (conspiracy theorists, religious fanatics, Ponzi schemers, cult leaders, political opportunists, etc.) in order to seduce and victimize credulous persons who would rather live in a fantasy world than the real one. It hardly matters whether that alternative reality is utopian or dystopian, for neither is authentically real. What matters is that, without a commonly shared understanding of reality, it is impossible to implement the choices and behaviors that contribute to harmonious relationships in the present and a collective hope for the future.
Last question; are my understandings or beliefs comprehensive; do they stand up in most circumstances and situations? Those who spend vast amounts of time video gaming know it is easy to immerse one’s self in a computer generated alternate universe where the ordinary laws of Newtonian physics do not apply. Science demonstrates that when subjected to extremes in temperature, various chemical substances do not behave as they do under ordinary environmental conditions. Seismologists tell us that when an earthquake takes place the surface of the earth responds with properties ordinarily found in liquids rather than those of solids. And quantum physics observes that sometimes sub-atomic particles behave like waves and at other times like discreet points of matter.
While all these statements are true; they are also illustrations of the exceptional, not the ordinary. We human beings, for the most part, “live and move and have our being” in the mundane and ordinary rather than the exceptional. Therefore, it is imperative that we formulate approaches to rationality consistent with the vast number of ordinary experiences we share, rather than upon our occasional encounters with the extraordinary. This is neither a denial of “miracle” nor is it a rejection of the possibility that the universe is more complex and contingent than many wish to assume. It is simply the assertion that my everyday life is not lived in the realm of miracle, nor do I daily deal with worm holes, cosmic singularities, and big bang/big crunch theories of the origin of the universe.
What I deal with is finding useful work to do, relating lovingly with family and friends, living positively with others, and humbly trying to contribute to the harmony and hopefulness of the world rather than facilitating its conflict and despair. Unlike Stephen Hawking and his cohorts, I am not in search of a G-U-T, a grand unifying theory of everything. I am merely seeking a more or less comprehensive and intelligible way to relate to the joys and celebrations, and the hardships and complexities of life; and rationality is an essential component of my quest. I trust it is of yours as well.
The debate is as old as Anselm of Canterbury and Rene Descartes’ ontological arguments for the existence of God and the world, and the refutations of those arguments by people like Gaunilo of Marmoutiers and Thomas Hobbes. Anselm’s “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” and Descartes’ famous dictum, “I think therefore I am,” may both be challenged by referencing an imaginary reality to illustrate the point that just because you can think it doesn’t make it real or true! The sheer fact that we human beings are capable of abstract thought and the ability to extrapolate from one experience to the possibility of another is both a blessing and a curse. The first century contemporary of the Apostle Paul, the Stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca observed, “We . . . suffer more from imagination than from reality.” All of us have observed, when awakened from a strange dream or nightmare, “It seemed so real!” Because the difference between reality and non-reality is often difficult to discern, it is imperative that persons wishing to live together in harmony and hope develop the skills to distinguish one from the other.
Pontius Pilate was many things, but original was not one of them. When he demanded of Jesus an answer to the, even then, age old question, “What is truth?” he was simply echoing the question that had been pondered for centuries. We tend to apply modern notions to the question and assume it is one about what is “true” and what is “false.” For the ancients it was the question, “What is real?” And various ancient personages sought to answer the question of “What is real?” by various means.
Plato proposed that lying behind the tangible objects we experience through our empirical senses and those concepts and ideas we deduce through reason are ultimate, eternal ideas that are experienced in our sensory or reflective experiences. The tangible chair or table or rock is merely a finite, perishable example of the ultimate, infinite, eternal idea of chairness or tableness or rockness. Furthermore, our mental expressions of truth, or beauty, or love are real only because lying behind them and giving them meaning are the ultimate, eternal, intangible realities of truth, or beauty, or love.
Aristotle came at the matter somewhat differently. For him the ultimate idea and its particular expression could only be separated for the purpose of talking about them. In Aristotle’s thought the eternal idea and the tangible expression of the idea are inextricably bound together. Thus the universal idea of chair and any particular chair both express the same reality from differing directions. The ultimate idea expresses the unity of all that “chairness” means. The particular tangible chair is a manifestation of the diversity of tangible realities that still may be referred to by the term “chair.” Furthermore, we may talk about loving to travel, or loving our country, or loving chocolate, or loving another because of the existence of the universal, imperishable, eternal idea of love that expresses itself in diverse manifestations of experiential love.
Across the centuries others have proposed additional responses to the question, “What is real?” Time does not permit, and I suspect you lack the interest or patience to continue to pursue them in this lecture. Suffice it to say that as surely as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” the abstract determination of “what is real” is conditioned to a certain degree by the perception of the perceiver. Does this leave us with the conclusion that “what is real to you is real to you” and “what is real to me is real to me” even though those realities may be as diametrically opposed as matter and anti-matter? No, it doesn’t! But it does mean that for living and relating to one another in harmony and hope we need a shared set of criteria by which we test our answer, or answers, to the question, “What is real?” or as Pontius Pilate asked it, “What is truth?”
Unfortunately, there are many challenges to properly perceiving what is real in our experience. It seems particularly important to note three of them. The first challenge arises when we begin with fixed conclusions rather than with open-ended questions? Whether it is the early medieval notion of a flat, three storey universe, or the racist notion that Caucasian human beings are more human than people of African or Asian racial heritage, or that governments are better suited to make decisions about people’s personal lives than the people themselves; the end result is inevitably scientifically mistaken, culturally Chauvinistic, and politically repressive. Whether expressed as “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” or as “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind’s made up.” sadness and disaster are inevitable. Conclusions should come at the end of the quest to determine what is real and, even then, those conclusions should be tentative, not fixed.
A second challenge to accurately perceiving what is real is the assumption that the perceptions of others must be wrong if they are different from one’s own. Too many of us live in an I-centered universe where we adamantly refuse to entertain any vision of reality that is perceived through a different lens than one’s own. Such persons insist that their political views, their religious beliefs, their positions on social issues, and their vision of the world must stand unchallenged; and the only right they concede to the rest of us is the right to be wrong.
A third challenge is that of what I call the “Tertullian Syndrome.” When one makes one’s way through the writings of this early Christian thinker, one can follow his progression from the open-mindedness of the philosopher to that of the maliciously intolerant demagogue who can say, “I believe it because it is absurd.” This attitude arises when one seeks to understand what is real from a fundamentalist perspective. Please don’t misunderstand me. I have argued for decades that “Fundamentalism is a mind-set, not a theological perspective.” I have known liberal fundamentalists and moderate fundamentalists as well as conservative fundamentalists. I have known social fundamentalists, and economic fundamentalists, and political fundamentalists. What they share in common is an understanding of reality that is set in theological, or social, or economic, or political ideological concrete. And when their attention is drawn to any cracks in their interpretation of reality they simply pour more ideological concrete into the cracks.
Do these and other challenges to understanding “What is real?” leave us in an impasse making it impossible for us to relate to one another harmoniously and to realize a meaningful vision of collective hope? Not necessarily, if we are willing to be mindful of some essential principles regarding answering the question, “What is real?” First, reality is public. The natural order, the rotation of the earth on its axis, the influence of gravity, and the functioning of the Laws of Motion and Physics are public; they work the same for everyone. Even when it comes to belief systems there is a public quality to their structure and function. Whether religious, political, economic, or social, they must all be subject to the scrutiny and dialogue of the public square. And the refusal to acknowledge and concede the public nature of reality ultimately ends in isolation, socio-pathology, and insanity.
Second, what is real is consistent. Ralph Waldo Emerson may very well have been correct in his observation that in the realm of human behavior “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds . . . .” However, even the self-reliant Emerson would never have wanted to live in a natural order where the sun did not appear in the east every morning, water did not run downhill, and seasonal change was not relatively predictable. Consistency is not the same as absolute uniformity; consistency simply implies that there is a relatively reliable predictability about the functioning of reality that is essential for the orderly progression of life. Within that relatively reliable predictability one can agree with John Lennon that “reality leaves a lot to the imagination.” Even one of the most enduring and endearing writers of fantasy, J.R.R. Tolkien, conceded that there is “an inner consistency of reality.” Without this inner consistency there is no enduring and dependable answer to the question, “What is real?” All we are left with is shadow, confusion, and perpetual anxiety.
Third, “What is real?” is verifiable; reality can be subjected to test. Now, it is important that one be careful at this point. Since there is diversity in reality, not all aspects of “What is real?” may be tested in the same way. Some aspects of reality may be tested through empirical observation; some by the logic of deductive reasoning. Other aspects are tested by the passage of time. Yet others are dependent upon the successful achievement of some objective for their verification. And the most subjective aspects of reality (love, religious experience, etc.) are verified through tests such as gratification, reciprocation, and inner harmony and peace. And this means that as surely as we must use differing tools to verify the reality of differing aspects of “What is real?” we must also accept the truth that our tools of verification will yield varying degrees of certitude. In a base ten mathematical system 2 plus 2 will always equal 4; but in the realm of interpersonal relationships one may sing along with Spiral Starecase, “I love you more today than yesterday, but not as much as tomorrow.”
Now all that remains is some reflection upon how the careful practice of the 4-Rs (Respect, Reconnaissance, Rationality, and Reality) is essential to the process of living together in harmony and hopefulness in the modern world. It is often asserted that all politics is local. While I am not absolutely sure this truism is universally valid, I am prepared to acknowledge that most meaningful and enduring relationships are built from the ground up. While not eschewing the possibility of Divine revelation or the existence of certain universal and immutable laws upon which the cosmos functions, I am determined to assert that, if we have any measure of personal and collective freedom and self-determination, it is neither God nor the cosmic principles of the universe who determine whether we live together in harmony and hope. The truth is that only we, and never a single “I” can fix it. Harmony and hope lie, to paraphrase the Bard of Avon, “not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Our individual and collective choices, from the ground up, will determine whether we learn to live together in harmony in the present in order to enable the realization of any positive hopes we may have for the future.
Since I have elected to shift this discussion from the theoretical to the practical, it is appropriate that I shift the tense to first person singular. Then the question becomes, “What must I do, what responsibilities are incumbent upon me, if a harmonious and hopeful future is to be facilitated?” Allow me briefly to answer my own question.
First, I must consistently choose respectful speech over inflammatory rhetoric in my communication with others. In our present world of extreme opinions and the cacophony of noise generated by an in-your-face and round-the-clock news cycle, brevity of speech and calmness of tone are lost virtues in dire need of recovery. And here it is my responsibility to communicate respectfully whether others do or not. The sage of Proverbs was correct when he said, “A soft answer turneth away wrath: But grievous words stir up anger” (Prov. 15:1 KJV).
Second, I must choose reconnaissance (i.e., informing myself) rather than knee-jerk reactions that are the product of ignorance and misinformation. Our almost immediate access to information through electronic media is one of the blessings of modern life. It is also, like all technological progress and innovation, subject to abuse, misuse and the inherent dangers accompanying them. Over a career of teaching I constantly cautioned students doing research that “Just because you found it in a book doesn’t automatically make it reliable information.” And today, just because we find it on the Internet or see it on TV doesn’t automatically make it reliable information either.
One of the tragedies of modern life is the flood of mayhem, confusion, and grief resulting from the posture of many to act first and think about it later. The end result is the tendency to opt for verbal or physical violence as a default option. And, many, when it becomes evident they acted on false information or misinformation, elect to double-down upon their naïve credulity rather than recant their words and deeds.
Third, I must discipline myself to choose rational thought and behavior over emotional outbursts/responses. Often someone would ask, “Dr. Gregg, what do you teach?” My immediate response was, “I teach people.” Invariably the person would respond with “I mean what subjects do you teach?” Sometimes I would just list courses; but if they seemed genuinely interested I would explain that my primary classroom objective was to enable students to think critically, and subject matter was simply one of the tools I used in that pedagogical process. In other places I have argued for the importance of heads, hearts, and hormones in human decision making and behavior. But I also argue for the primacy of head (mind) over heartfelt sentiment or instinctively driven hormones. I think I am in concert with the writer of James when he said, “We put bits into the mouths of horses that they may obey . . . . Look at the ships also; though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs” (James 3:3-4 GNT). Harmonious and hopeful living is entirely too important to be guided primarily by feelings and instincts. The Apostle Paul was sure that “God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (II Tim. 1:7 KJV).
Lastly, I must choose to live in the complexities of the real world rather than embrace surreal fantasies where the world always works the way I want it to work. Living in the real world requires realistic expectations of self and others, the willingness to adjust and compromise, and the humility required to learn from the insights and understandings of others. While most aspects of life are simple, there is nothing simplistic about living in harmony and hope. Those who choose to think the answer to everything can be printed on a bumper sticker or posted in a tweet tend to miss most of the richness, multiplicity, and color of life. By choosing to live in their own personal hit-and-run bubble they breeze through life pontificating about a world as they see it, and more often than not entirely miss experiencing the world as it is.
Without Respect, Reconnaissance, Rationality, and Reality it will be impossible for us to relate to one another harmoniously in the present and work together to enable a hopeful future for everyone.
