Epistemological Relativism

I’m constantly amused by the romanticism surrounding the transition and transformation of Colonial America into the collection of united states. We’ve all (those who have been educated in the U.S.) been exposed to the themes of oppression, misrepresentation and tyranny that are found throughout the writings of the period. In some ways this romanticism is well-founded. We witness a loose collection of colonies fight and scrape their way toward independence. Following on the heels of this new found independence they manage to construct and implement a system of government that was an amalgam of incredible ideas and ideals. The Enlightenment, the earlier Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution were the fertile seedbeds from which the founders harvested. All of these events, which seem trivialized by my meager coverage, are worthy of respect and study regardless of your political and religious views. Despite all of this, there is this irony just below the surface; the type of irony contained within a tragedian’s masterwork.

This tragedy was not, however, written by a poet attempting to craft a contemporary version of a Homeric epic replete with fatally flawed characters. Instead, this is the story of the truly tragic. Yet, in school, in our romanticism and admiration of the great and fantastic accomplishments all that is dark and gone awry is obscured or hidden away. There can be numerous reasons and explanations of why this is the way it is. How, though are we to learn from our mistakes and improve ourselves and our nation except through gazing long and hard at our past in all its greatness and imperfection?

Very early on we see the expansion and colonization (if I can use that word) of the west. As a newly united and sovereign nation there appears some implicit expectation of entitlement. We can see the transformation of the once oppressed into the oppressor. The Thrasymachian undercurrents can be seen when battle after battle is fought to annex more territory. Might makes right is what we can read between the lines. But, how can this be? Surely there are some foundational, unalienable rights that should not, no cannot, be violated. And yet by some weird twist of fate the new republic dons the mantle of tyranny.

What entitles a sovereign nation of any size to seize or purchase territory? What entitles a sovereign nation to marginalize an indigenous population in such a way as to sell the land that they live upon? This question raises a host of complex questions, that we loathe to address. Deep down we all know the answer. But to answer the question requires a great shift in thinking and action. Could this be why we don’t think about how our lovely land was formed?

To add additional irony, I am writing this from a chair in a state that was ceded to the United States after the Spanish-American War. Without a U.S. victory, I may not have been born here or anywhere for that matter. I enjoy the freedom to write and live as peacefully as possible. I enjoy what all the wars and innumerable deaths have provided. I am truly thankful, but it sounds odd or morbid to offer any sort of thanks for these events. The founders did great things in constructing a country such as this. It is unfortunate that it came at such an incredible price both before and after the founding of our nation.

Note: This isn’t some crazy anti-war polemic. I try to resist such polarization and classification, but if you must label me, consider me a supporter of patriotism, freedom and reform. Consider me optimistic that we can be truly human by improving ourselves through honest reflection.

Many times in my religious experience I’ve had a desire to throw the baby out with the bath water because of the sheer stupidity of the present. I’m sure I’m not alone there either. For example, when reading about early church history and practices I would imperiously declare that the Greco-Roman Gentile converts-turned-leaders had gotten it all wrong. It was because of this confusion that Christendom was in such a sorry state today or so I thought. Naturally, the only real alternative was to throw everything out and start from the beginning. It took quite some time to realize that this beginning-ness had problems of its own. Where was the beginning? This jettisoning of tradition (whatever was left to begin with), the community of faith (past and present) and the general attitude of mistrust, however, made it nearly impossible to recover any sort of religious bearings. Barth is amazing because he manages to understand this dilemma and chart a course that avoids the problems that come from this type reaction and yet remain fluid enough to introduce needed corrections to the community. Barth will not allow everything to be discarded. He may give away too much in assuming that the community of faith did not go critically awry in the not-so-distant past, but he does not create an ivory tower out of this community of the past that is hitherto immutable.

Certainly, the assumption behind all this will be that the community itself may have been on the right track in the recent or remote past, or at any rate on a not altogether crooked path. Consequently, fundamental trust instead of mistrust will be the initial attitude of theology toward the tradition which determines the present-day Church. And any questions and proposals which theology has to direct to the tradition will definitely not be forced on the community like a decree; any such findings will be presented for consideration only as well-weighed suggestions. Nevertheless, no ecclesiastical authority should be allowed by theology to hinder it from honestly pursuing its critical task, and the same applies to any frightened voices from the midst of the rest of the congregation. The task of theology is to discuss freely the reservations as well as the proposals for improvement which occur to it in reflection on the inherited witness of the community.

– Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology (Eerdmans, 1963) 43.

–Update: Did anyone notice that I used the word ‘hitherto’?

I was writing a bit off-blog about how different people approach the Protestant Bible. I thought it was interesting so I brought it into the blog to share. For a bit of context, I was speaking with a friend where I was mostly listening to him explain why his informed views of the meaning of the biblical text are to be preferred. Of course, like many people, his explanation was nothing more than an appeal to, “It is so clear, how can you *not* see it my way”. What he did not understand and, at first, acknowledge was the critical role that assumptions play in this process of understanding. Some people call them assumptions, others call them axioms and still others call them facts. The truth of the matter is that these assumptions, the lense by which we view the biblical text, are not themselves built into the text. They are part of our overall approach to reading texts like this. The challenge is that not everyone has the same set of lenses and yet many feel there particular brand of spectacles are the only ones authorized for this use.

These lenses control and in some ways determine how we understand biblical texts. This can be good and bad. If our lenses do not include the consideration of the cultural and historical context of the text things can get dicey. These considerations should constrain the possible meanings. Yes, you heard it right, we may receive the text in a particular way, but that is something entirely different than what the author intended and the first recipients may have understood . Many presume that our twentieth century lenses our the ultimate instrument to see the real meaning of a text. Unfortunately, this includes many, many people. We have to ask though, whether it is appropriate to view a text in a way that is disconnected from its temporal-spatial origin.

It sounds like I’m placing ancient texts in a vault and giving the key to a select few. Perhaps, this is the result and maybe that isn’t a terrible thing. In fact, in evangelical circles, this is the de facto standard anyways. Actually, this is the reason why I am blogging about this to begin with. Many people listen to those in authority who, with mostly good intentions, communicate the meaning of texts without communicating the method and built-in assumptions. I think the quote below from Frank Beckwith, a recent convert to Catholicism, summarizes the dilemma that most simply ignore.

In fact, it was just such reasoning that pushed me toward Catholicism. I thought to myself that if sola scriptura can result in everything from the philosophical theology of Calvinism to the Open View of God, from Nicean Trinitarianism to social trinitarianism to Oneness Pentecostalism’s rehabilitation of Sabellianism to 19^th-century Unitarianism, then sola scriptura is not a sufficient bulwark for sustaining Christian orthodoxy.

I was listening to the radio again where I heard the now familiar phrase “culture war”. I wondered, as always, if this really is anything new. Ever since there were human societies and communities there were struggles over ideas. Struggles because even in the most extreme circumstances humans are still individuals. They may not, in some societies, be individualistic, but they remain individuals. They are human. The degree to which an individual’s own ideas are shaped and determined is and has been hotly debated. The fact remains however that even in a society dominated by a large group of like-minded individuals, there are at least as many who do not align with the dominate group’s ideals.

To say that we are in a culture war, then is a bit superfluous. Or is it? The really incredible news would be that we were not in a culture war. I don’t intend, with a wave of my hand, to make the issues that surround us seem meaningless or without dire consequences. Here comes the irony. What I intend to bring to everyone’s attention is that this is now news. In the West and particularly where I live in North America, we have grown so busy with our busy-ness that we’ve lost sight of our responsibilities as citizens. Like many out there who feel that it is the government’s responsibility to raise the world’s children, we have implicitly made similar statements with regards to the direction of culture and value where we live. We put those decisions into the hands of “people that know better”. But, who are these people? We don’t really know. It is only a hopeful expectation that “everything will be okay”. Maybe it will be okay. Of course, that is dependent upon where you stand when the dust settles on certain issues. Now, the challenge is that if we decide to engage in these issues, do we have the equipment to think carefully about them?

I’ve noticed an interesting trend among people around my age. It seems we’ve inherited something from the previous generation that we are now realizing has been a source of disconnectedness. For the most part my age group has been somewhat hostile to tradition in any form. Whether it is religious (especially this), cultural or anything else in between we’ve tried to make our own way and play by our own rules. We hate it when someone tells us that something has to be a specific way. We know there is more than one way to do something.

But this view isn’t entirely ours. We’ve inherited it. The sixties and seventies were a tumultuous time when many were fighting against the traditions handed down to them. These apparently constraining, narrow-minded and oppressive traditions wielded by self-appointed authorities were the source of ridicule and scorn. Indeed many of them were not just outmoded, but the manifestation of the misguided attempts of the modern era who thought objective reason could not be wrong. These attitudes were transferred indirectly to us by virtue of our proximity to these upheavals.

The problem now as I see it is that this jettisoning of the idea of tradition and the actual practices themselves has left many of us without a connection. Sure, we all have pop-culture to look back romantically at, but that is it. It ends there. Our connection is only an illusion. There lies the problem. Many that I’ve talked to are now feeling the effects of this rejection. Some look for real connections, some find traditions. This time, however, tradition isn’t an authoritarian rule of conduct, but a way of establishing a connection with a large segment of humanity. It is a vehicle for relating and sharing with others. It is something that we haven’t done or don’t do very often mostly out of habit now.

Now that we are realizing that the rejection we’ve inherited isn’t our own we can try something different and yet the same. Maybe we can now approach this notion of tradition with fresh minds that aren’t encumbered by the experiences of our forebears. This intended purpose of tradition to provide connection and continuity to groups is what many have missed out on. Somehow and at sometime it was changed into some sort of authoritarian sledgehammer that people eventually rejected. It seems many are trying tradition like a new pair of clothes and realizing that they’ve been missing out on an important part of the human experience. Where to discover, invent and practice these traditions will be the topic of a future post.

No, I’m not actually going to write about the problem of evil, but I do have a question or thought about something related. When we as a group, society or country witness acts against fellow humans that most, if not all, would consider evil what would be an appropriate response? Better yet, what ought we do? And are these two answers the same? The latter question is a bit more complicated (as if the first isn’t). Where does this ought-ness come from?

After living through wars, reading about even greater wars in the past and watching or hearing about a governments attempt to solve the problems by limiting the powers of others while, at the same time, attempting to consolidate their own it is no wonder that we draw the conclusion that violence of any kind isn’t a viable answer the the question.

To some, war seems to have been a realistic answer. But I think it is safe to say that, in the final analysis, it creates more problems than it solves. But is this enough for us to discard any sort of violent response when confronted with the scenario above? Does a violent response simply create yet another act of evil? Is it better to watch another human being be on the receiving end of some act of evil than to intervene at the expense of the aggressor?

At first glance this sounds like a moral dilemma of sorts, but upon closer examination perhaps this is just a sign of how morally confused we really are when we can no longer deal with a straight forward situation. For starters, many would scoff at the idea of some sort of norm or ought-ness. Of course, once you go down that road, can you really be upset at those that choose a different answer to the question? In a morally confused state we have a difficult time even understanding the rules that we use to answer the question. Whose rules do we use or are there rules at all?

I know this sounds insensitive to the millions that have lost their lives when “war” was the answer, but we can’t simply take the easy way out and say that all violent responses to evil acts are not permitted. Well, we can say it, but for it to have any force, we have to have good reasons for following the advice. A very important criteria should be whether following this rule will protect the innocent from death. The easy “make love, not war” sounds great, but I think falls flat when measured by this criteria. So what is the answer?

So, I went to see 300, again; this time in IMAX. I had two reasons for going. The first is obvious for anyone who has seen the movie. It is a great graphic novel to film adaptation. The stylized cinematography is incredible and fits the character of the novel. But I won’t be discussing this reason here. The second reason I was inclined to see it again is because I continue to hear complaints from the Persian community that this film misrepresents, distorts, caricatures and otherwise tramples upon Persian history and culture. With this second reason in mind, I attempted to watch the film through Persian lenses. I hoped that I might detect within the film the reasons why many are disturbed, angry and upset at this film. In short, I did manage to see what may be offensive to the Persians. I could, of course, be totally wrong. In any event, it was an excellent experiment in attempting to be objective and to step outside one’s own societal and cultural context.

Some of the popular complaints that I hear are that the Persians within the movie are ugly, demonic and utterly fantastic. This, so the argument goes, portrays the Persians of that period as monsters to the viewers. Somehow this picture of fifth century Persians will jump across time and space and cause people today to view modern-day Persians in the same light. Now, whether this is what will happen is difficult to say. All I can offer is my assessment.

In the film there are Persian Immortals and an “uber” Immortal that are by all accounts rather unpleasing to look at. Nevermind the fact that their appearance doesn’t quite match the description given by Herodotus, but I digress. And nevermind the fact that Herodotus may have indeed fallen victim to what I am about to describe, but I digress again. These guys are ugly. Just take my word for it. If I were a Persian and this elite military unit were portrayed in this way I too would be a bit perturbed.

But, think about this for a moment. Think about the Immortals from the perspective of those who had or would very soon be engaged in battle with these military elites. They were a unit who seemingly never died. We know that any member of this unit who was killed or injured would immediately be replaced by another highly skilled warrior. Their ability in battle was perhaps legendary even in that time. Their equipment, however inferior to the Greek’s of that period, was still impressive. Those that had faced the Immortals and lived perhaps told tall tales of their encounter. Word spread and soon there were fantastic accounts of this elite fighting force. From the eyes of a Greek, would they not have thought these things? Would they not have told similar stories?

The Immortals within the film 300 are nothing more than projections or personifications of the Greeks. Instead of the standard Persian Immortal of history (if we can really know who that was, but I digress again) we have a picture on screen of the Immortials within the minds of the Greeks during that period. It is not terribly original, but it does make for an interesting movie when what is in the minds of an opposing army confronts them in the flesh. All the tales of these Immortals were conflations of a imaginative warrior. So, instead of being perturbed, I would, as a Persian, be proud that the battlefield skills of he Immortals where the cause of terror, dread and renown. Maybe this is not something that a Persian today would be proud of? I don’t know, but Immortals were the type of force that would instill these strong emotions in the enemy. And they did this because they proved it.

This explanation settled it for me, but I am not Persian. This is both good and bad. Perhaps because I am not Persian I can be a bit more objective in the assessment. But, because I am not Persian, I cannot see other dimensions of this insult. In the end, I am convinced. This explanation is useful for the character Xerxes in the film as well. Approaching the Persians in the film from the eyes of a conquered nation or one that has experienced their might in battle may be illuminating for the Persians out there.

This leaves only one more general consideration. There is also complaints that the Persians are vilified in the film. On all levels, some claim, the Persians are represented as unsophisticated, conquering savages with no sense of culture, honor and decency. This is quite a bit to extract from a film inspired by a comic book as imagined by its author, but let’s try to sort it out. I think I’ve dealt sufficiently with the savages part above. For the other attributes, I would argue that the Battle of Thermoplyae and stories about it, does not have as its goal the enumeration of all the Persian achievements of the period. Instead, it attempts to communicate a battle between a group of relatively sovereign states and a foreign power intent on acquiring more. I won’t bother to stir the pot and discuss what this nebulous more is. The point is made, I think, without that.

So, if this is true, why are some still upset? It is the romantic in all of us. We all look back fondly at the cultures we are a part of. We praise all of the incredible social, economic and technological advances. The Persians accomplished a great deal in all of these areas. That is without question. What many fail to realize, and this may be where perspective will help illuminate, is that the Persian empire of that period conquered many nations. To presume that fifth century Persia simply annexed territories for itself by mutually beneficial treaties offered at the hand of a benevolent ruler is pure fantasy. Sure, there are cases where the conquered territories were treated with some level of dignity and respect, but what about the others? Look at the history. This period of time was a tumult of violence and, unfortunately, Persia was not immune. The survival of a nation required it. In the final analysis, many failed to remember the complete legacy of the Persian Empire of this period. And no matter how romantically we may look back at the Persian culture in the fifth century, to say nothing of whether it is justified or not, we are confronted with the simple fact that the Persian army traveled across the Mediterranean with the intent to draw the Greeks by forceful coercion into submission and subservience to the Persian Empire. If this is offensive I am sorry, but these are the facts as we know them.

So ends my analysis of the film 300 and the response of the Persian community. Many may still be unconvinced by my brief sketch, but I encourage all to look back at history and while doing so look at it from beyond our respective cultural context. If this is done, I believe that my arguments will not be seen as the opinion of a confused western movie-goer.

After a good conversation with some friends the other day I realized that we have a habit of rejecting arguments from someone who does not possess some set of qualiications. Sometimes these qualifications are education, sometimes they are a certain set of experiences. At other times we reject the arguments for reasons not at all related to the subject. Instead we reject the argument because we don’t share the person’s habits, way of thinking or way of living. This type of thinking or lack thereof can best be captured by the Genetic Fallacy. The Genetic Fallacy “is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.”

How often do we reject outright an argument from someone who we consider not up to the task? How about finding flaws in someone when they give us an opinion which we don’t particularly like without really considering whether it is true or valid? Watch yourself today, see how often you fall victim to this fallacy. It is important, I think, because the more we fall victim to this the more our minds become closed to alternate views, new ways of thinking and most importantly of all correction of our erroneous views. It this effect we should fear above all others.

Moral values are interesting creatures. This is especially so when we see people having lively discussions regarding them. Most people believe that moral values are derived from convention, society or some other utilitarian sources. But, if they are derived from these sources, the only discussions we can have regarding them is whether we prefer one or the other. Yet, ironically, this is far from what people have in mind when they have this sort of discussion. They intend to demonstrate by the volume of their voice or their well-intentioned reasons that some or all of their moral values are right and the other person’s are wrong.

If moral values do come from convention, society or some other utilitarian source they can’t truly be wrong can they? What does wrong actually mean in this context? Well, wrong in the classical sense usually means we’ve erred or are mistaken. However, if moral values actually derive from the sources above then it follows that there will be a plurality of conventions, societal mandates and so on. If this is the case how can we really say that some are wrong? Instead all we’re really saying is that we don’t particularly prefer “their” moral values. But this is like criticizing someone’s preference in cars and hair color (hi Keith!). It becomes almost pointless. The truth is, we don’t actually mean this when discussing moral values.

In order to use the term wrong appropriately we must have some measurement that is more fixed than “what works” or “what society tells us”. But placing moral values on something as unstable and dynamic as utility and society forces us to either drop this serious conversation or else consider alternatives to our theories of where moral values ultimately derive. Ground moral values on these changing conditions makes conversations about competing moral values pointless if not meaningless. Pointless because there isn’t much point in convincing me that my taste in ice cream is wrong. Meaningless because moral values based on the above criteria are incapable of being wrong or right, much less true or false. This is only the tip of a large iceberg.

While driving home and flipping through the radio station I heard a program that was dicussing the recent decisions by congress aimed at getting our troops home. I was amazed by the announcer and the callers. The announcer claimed that if we stop the war we will eventually be fighting “them” on our soil. Others called in and said that if we left, other more powerful regimes would move in a take control of the region. Yet others claimed that we cannot and should not stop the war against Al Qaeda. I was mortified at the lack or willingness to think carefully about the reality of the situation. I won’t debate about how we got into the war, because, quite honestly, that is water under the bridge. But, to pretend that we are there to “fight Al Qaeda” or prevent terrorist attacks through preemption is silly.

Iraq was under the control of a despotic regime. Nobody argues with that. What many miss is that because of this absolute rule Sadam was able to “unite” (read: suppress) all of the other groups and cultures within Iraq. There are Kurds with unique nationalistic views and there are Shiite and Sunni Muslims. And don’t think because I grouped the two together that they are similar. They diverge in the level of secularization, political outlook and, of course, the usual cultural differences. Even though they may have gotten along more peacefully in times past the recent history of abuses has led to a situation in which it is difficult for anyone to get along.

There is now a vacuum in the region. Groups are attempting to gain control of what they think is their’s or what they are entitled to. Can we really blame them? We removed a totalitarian regime, but we failed to consider what this would do in a region with several different groups of people. So now, we pretend that Iraq is just a big plot of land with a bunch of “islamo-fascists” that need to be taken out before they take us out. Let’s be real. Many (most?) are laying claim to what they think is rightfully theirs whether through political process or by force.

Instead of fighting the battles of all these groups perhaps we should figure out how to undo what we (in the past few years) and the Brits (after WWI) have done and make it right? This talk about fighting Al-Qaeda, preventing terrorists from attacking us here and other rhetoric is getting old. Haven’t we screwed up enough nations? Haven’t we learned from history and in particular British colonialism? Haven’t we learned that we get it wrong more often than not (Just take a look at the decisions of the League of Nations)?

I shouldn’t have to say this, but this isn’t “anti-war” in the broad sense, because I believe there is a place for war. I have had relatives, as most people have, serve this country with honor and distinction. But, to continue this particular effort under these false pretenses I think dishonors their courage and sacrifice. There are dozens of cases where military action was required (read: we were morally obligated to act) and has stopped the abuse of people at the hands of those with power. There are consequences even for these good and noble causes. In the case of Iraq, I don’t think we considered what would happen when the people, all the people, were freed from the regime. They are now free from the regime and its atrocities, but instead of living life like they were minus Saddam, they want something different.