Paradoxical Paradigm is a book in concept that was born in my heart and mind a number of years ago. I have written and rewritten this work to make it as understandable as possible. It is a journey in thought, and examination of what makes us think and act the way we do. I will admit from the start that I do not claim that the thoughts and ideas expressed here are totally my own. There are numerous authors more qualified than me who have expressed similar thoughts and ideas using different terminology in other publications. My hope is that in my efforts, in my method of expression, I can capture the readers’ attention in such a way as to create a desire for each reader to examine his/her own journey of thought and self-revelation. The question I want to provoke is, “Why do we think the way we do, and interpret life the way we do?”
Let’s examine what I mean by the title, “Paradoxical Paradigm”.
Paradox: A statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd, but in reality, expresses a possible truth. Any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently self-contradicting nature.
Paradigm: An example, serving as a pattern or model. A framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of any field of study. A cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group.
Although I am not aware of these two terms being merged in the sense I am using, a plausible definition for paradoxical paradigm I would propose would go something like this: “Any set of assumptions constituting a way of interpreting reality that may seem self-contradictory, but which could express a possible truth.”
How do you interpret life? That is one of the most basic and fundamental questions that all of us need to ask ourselves. All of us have some basic idea or belief about what life means. All of us have beliefs about right and wrong. We may not agree about what is right and what is wrong, but we cannot deny having some perception about this. There is no such thing as “value free” anything. One trend that was popular in the public school system for a while was what is referred to as “value free education”. Just teach the facts. Don’t inject morality into anything. This concept is total nonsense as far as I am concerned. Everyone involved in the educational system has some set of beliefs about what is morally right and what is morally wrong whether these beliefs or ideas agree with their peers’ beliefs or not. To say that those values do not exist is not true. For example, many schools have implemented a “no bullying” policy. In essence, this is a statement of belief that bullying is wrong and should not be practiced or tolerated, thus implying a value, or an assumption of morality. In a truly “value free” educational environment it would be perfectly acceptable to cheat on a math test, because, to say that cheating is wrong implies a value. Academic honesty is valued. In a value free educational system, the bully has every right to take his classmates’ lunch money by force if, in his mind, it is okay. What right would the teacher have to impose his belief that the bully’s action is wrong? Value free is a theory that has no basis in reality. People do not live that way.
Another nonsense statement people make goes something like this: “Your values are not my values”. This implies that we are all free to choose what we think is right and wrong based on our own whims. If this were true, if there was no such thing as real right and real wrong, only what each individual’s perception of right and wrong is, then we have no basis for calling anyone out on their actions, because for them, it might not be wrong. This is nonsense. If someone stole your wallet, what aspect of that action would anger you? Perhaps, in their way of thinking, it was justifiable because they had a financial need that stealing your wallet would fix. Obviously, their values and not the same as yours. But you think your values are right, thus implying theirs to be wrong. So, you have passed judgement on another person’s values. Would someone stealing your wallet anger you because you are being inconvenienced? You will have to replace your driver’s license, credit and debit cards, and all the other important things in your wallet. Or, is it because there is something inside you that says stealing is morally wrong? Maybe some of the former (inconvenience), but I suspect more of the latter (the belief that stealing is morally wrong). Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? Is it a product of environment and/or upbringing, or is it something that is just hardwired into us that we have no control over? II think it makes more sense to say that it is hardwired into us. It comes from somewhere else.
Beliefs about right and wrong, along with many other things we use to interpret reality, are what constitutes our life paradigms. Our paradigms are what we use to interpret life and reality. Some people will say that they do not have a life paradigm. They will say that life does not mean anything. This is what is referred to as Nihilism. It is my contention that there is no such thing as a true Nihilist. People may think of themselves as Nihilists, but they are liars. It is not possible to live this way. We all have reasons for the things we say and do, whether we acknowledge those reasons or not.
It is also my contention that there is no such thing as a true Atheist. Most of the people I know who profess to be Atheists spend an exorbitant amount of time and energy arguing against something they say is not real. If God is not real, who cares? If you tell me that there is a purple elephant lying in my living room floor, I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you that there is not. I will just think you are nuts, and leave it at that.
I think a lot of people who profess to be Atheists are really people that are just mad at God about something that has happened to them in their lives, or some great disappointment that has occurred. I remember a time in my own life when I wanted to believe I was an Atheist. I was doing a lot of drugs, and honestly had a lot of guilty feelings about the things I was doing. So, I decided to say I did not believe in God. I was up one night, walking around. I remember saying out loud, “God, if you are real, prove it. Do one simple thing to give me a sign. Make that light on that pole over there flicker on and off”. The light did not flicker. I was mad! “Just as I thought, you are not real!” It later occurred to me that if God was not real, how could I be mad at Him? How could I be mad at a non-entity? The fact that I was mad proved to me that I really did believe in God, more so than a light flickering on and off. I saw that the problem was not with God, the problem was with me!
We all have reasons for the things we say and do. Let me give you an example of this: When my alarm clock goes off in the morning, I get up and get ready for work. Why? Why not just sleep in? Do I get up and go to work just because some other people I know are going to be there, and I am just going along for the ride? I don’t think so. (My job is not that great!) I get out of bed and go to work with a basic set of assumptions that go something like this: If I go to work, I will get paid. If I get paid, and use that money to pay my bills, my mortgage will not go into foreclosure. My car won’t be repossessed. My power, gas, water, and internet services will not be cut off. That is my work paradigm. I am not just going along for the ride. Sure, there can be other factors that comprise our work paradigm, such as personal fulfillment in the work we do, a desire to perform well and be a benefit to others, etc. There is a reason for going to work. It is not meaningless. We all operate under some paradigm, or paradigms whether we recognize and acknowledge them or not.
Along those same lines, it must be understood that we all operate under a basic set of assumptions. We all have things that we take for granted. Some people will say, “Don’t take anything for granted. Question everything!” This sounds good in theory, but in reality, no one can live this way. If I really lived this way, I could never do anything very simple, like just sitting down in a chair. I would have to wonder, each time, if the chair would hold my weight, or whether it would collapse. I would have to test it each time. The chair worked last time, but I can’t assume it will hold me this time, because it may have become weakened. This is nonsense. I am not going to torture myself with this mentally every time I sit down, or I would drive myself insane. I am just going to sit down in the chair. (There is a name for this kind of behavior: It is called Obsessive Compulsion Disorder, and it is mentally crippling.) This is not to say that our assumptions can’t be proven wrong and changed. They certainly can, and often should as we mature. Many of the things you thought you understood as a child are proven wrong, or partially wrong, or you gain a better understanding of them as you mature. Sometimes getting older does not necessarily meaning maturing, but it should.
We can compare these assumptions, these givens, to what we refer to in mathematical terminology as constants. An algebraic equation can’t be solved without constants. You can’t have an equation consisting only of variables. That type of equation could never be solved. The best that could be done with that type of equation would be to propose lots of theoretical possibilities. You can’t prove anything without constants. Constants, beliefs, assumptions, whatever terminology you choose to use, are where our paradigms begin. You can’t start with nothing. Every story, every theory, every philosophy, every set of religious beliefs has to start with something. Every story has to have a beginning, an implied “Once upon a time”.
It can also be said that our paradigm is our life’s framework. Every structure has to have a foundation and a framework. If it did not, it could not stand. Our paradigm is what holds our life together, and gives it stability. Our own personal lives, and the world in which we live, can seem very chaotic and confusing at times. Our paradigm must serve as our anchor, our connection to reality.
There can be many aspects to this paradigm. The first aspect is how we interpret things on a personal level. Why am I the way I am? Who am I? Why am I here? How do I interpret things that happen to me, or things I experience? Do I tend to feel victimized, or do I face life as an exciting challenge? Do the things I experience in life mean anything, or do I see them as just random chance? (This is a very significant issue.)
Another aspect of our paradigm is how we interpret other people and our interactions with them. Do we attribute value and significance to others, even to those with whom we disagree? Do we respect others and try to listen to them and understand them, or are we just interested in stating our own opinions and proving ourselves right?
How do we interpret the world we live in? How do we interpret the Cosmos in which our own planet is situated? What does it mean?
Another way of saying all this is that our beliefs form our paradigms. Let’s not get hung up on the use of the word “beliefs”. By beliefs, I simply mean those things we take for granted. Some people may say, “I do not have a system of beliefs”. This can never be true. If you say that you do not believe in God, that means that you “believe” there is no God, so you still have a belief system. You cannot prove that there is no God, and I cannot prove that there is, if we look at proving something in the sense of scientific experiments. So each of us exercises faith in what we believe. So called Atheism is just as much of a faith, a belief in something that cannot be scientifically proven, as is Christianity, or any other world religion. At the core of everyone’s interpretation of reality, however they choose to define it, is a set of beliefs, or assumptions about something, or someone.
Another word that is often used in our vernacular in the way I am using paradigm is worldview. Worldview is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. It refers to a framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group, or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it
For my purposes I would like to differentiate worldview from paradigm in that our worldview can be a part of what forms our paradigm, but our life paradigm is broader than the portion of it that constitutes our worldview. Our worldview may have more to do with how we know history, and our perception of the world and the Cosmos. Our paradigm gives meaning to those things. It is one thing to know the facts of history, it is another matter entirely to understand their meaning. It is one thing to know the facts about the Universe, or what we can know of it, based on current knowledge. It is another thing to understand the meaning of the Universe. There is a big difference. So people from one period in time may understand the world from a different perspective than those of another period in time, yet share the same fundamental paradigm about the meaning.
The term mindset is also used in a manner similar to paradigm Mindset is not so much the grid through which you interpret reality in the way in which I am using paradigm. Mindset has more to do with your attitude, disposition or mood. It can also be used to identify your intention, or inclination. Your mindset can be influenced by your paradigm, and vice-versa, but they should be recognized as two distinct things for the sake of my assertions here. Having said that, it may be noted that your worldview is probably more easily changed than your paradigm.
I would like to ask you to stop reading for a few minutes and conduct a thought experiment. Take out a sheet of paper, and a pen, or use your laptop or tablet, whatever works for you. Write down ten things that you believe to be true. Write them in their order of importance to you. Then, beside, or under each one, write why you believe it is true. Once you are finished doing this, put it away for later, and continue reading.
Now, let’s get back to the issue of paradoxical paradigm. The phrase, “paradigm shift” became a buzz in psychology, politics, and the academia in the 1980’s and 1990’s. It seemed to me that I was hearing that phrase thrown around more than the words, “rich in antioxidants” on food labels! The phrase, “paradigm shift” is used to represent a change in the perception or understanding of a given subject matter. The idea of paradigm shifts was defined and popularized by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 work entitled “The Structure of Scientific Revolution”.
A classic example of the paradigm shift that is often used to illustrate the concept is the flat earth verses the round earth view of the world. It is claimed that up to a certain point in history, people thought of the Earth as existing as a flat surface. It does seem that way to the naked eye, because we could not see the entirety of the earth up to a certain point in time when the technology we now have for viewing the world from an outside perspective did not exist. We experience it as we move about more like a flat surface than a sphere. Then, at some point in history, as we began to explore, we came to the conclusion that the Earth is not a flat surface, but a sphere. A paradigm shift occurred in our understanding of the world. The flat earth paradigm was proven faulty, and the round earth paradigm emerged.
Another shift that occurred is known as the Ptolemaic system. This theory went something like this: the earth is the stationary center of the Universe, and all the other celestial bodies, including the sun, revolve around the earth in nice, symmetrical orbits. The theory is a little more complex than that, but that is the gist of it. All this sounded good in theory, and made for tidy, symmetrical drawings. It looked good on paper. As our ability to observe the Cosmos improved, this theory was proven inaccurate, and wrong. This theory was eventually abandoned. As our use of telescopes advanced, we discovered that the earth is only orbited by the moon. We also discovered that the planets in this solar system do not orbit around the sun in circular patterns, but elliptical patterns.
The Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Copernican system. The essence of this theory was the idea that the Sun is the motionless center of the Solar System. This theory was a better explanation than the Ptolemaic system, but it was also flawed. Up until that time, we did not realize that there is much more to the Cosmos than our own solar system. We later discovered that our own Solar System is part of one of many complex Galaxies which make up what we now refer to as the Universe. The Copernican system was also eventually abandoned.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble proposed the Expanding Universe theory. This theory states that the Universe is neither fixed and finite, or infinite, but rather, it is growing, or expanding. This fits in with the premise of the Big Band theory, (the theory that everything in the universe originated with one mass.) This theory states that the Universe continues to expand outward from the original starting point.
These are examples of paradigm shifts that have occurred in astronomy over the course of time. This is by no means a comprehensive list. I do not claim to be an expert in any of these matters, and my explanations may contain inaccuracies. These are examples I am using to lead up to a bigger point I wish to make later in my conclusion.
Other paradigms have existed. Theories explaining the origin of the Universe, the origin of life on planet Earth, have been written, revised, abandoned and/or changed over the course of time. Examples of these include Darwinism, Panspermia (the idea that life, as a force, is eternal, possibly being transported to Earth from other places in the Universe,) Neo vitalism (the doctrine or opinion that the distinctive activities of living beings cannot completely be accounted for as the resultants of the physical and chemical constitution of their bodies and of their movements, according to the principles of mechanics.) Then there is the Oparin – Haldane hypothesis (primordial soup.) These are just a few. For a more thorough explanation of these theories I recommend the reader to The Origins of Life, by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, NavPress, 2004.
History is replete with examples of paradigm shifts that have occurred in Man’s system of thought. Our understanding of ourselves, and the world in which we live, is continuously being changed, expanded, and rewritten. Stay tuned for “Life, the Revised Edition”!
We all have certain paradigms, or grids, through which we interpret life. Your paradigm is your filter through which you process information and draw conclusions. There are many things that factor into the formation of a person’s life paradigm. Some of these things we have no control over, others we do. Some of the things over which we have no control are things that were in place even before we were born. For example, I was born a male, in the state of Tennessee, in the United States of America in 1960. My parent’s thoughts and opinions influenced me even before I was old enough to begin thinking my own thoughts. Things that helped to shape my paradigm are much different from, say, a female born in Hong Kong, China in 1996. Many of our cultural influenced are so ingrained in us that we just take them for granted, and do not question them. Many of us don’t take the time to examine our paradigms and question them. We can be controlled by them, and continue on with life without attempting to figure out why we think the way we do. But I think we should.
The beliefs and traditions of our culture, and our family of origin, our families’ socio-economic status, education level, and many other factors play a strong role in the formation of our initial life paradigms. I say “initial” because, even though these things influence us strongly, individuals, as well as societies, are capable of paradigm shifts. We can change.
In regards to traditions, there are two extremes that we tend to swing to, both of which are off balance. The first extreme is to elevate tradition to the point of being an idol. We accept what has been handed down to us in a passive way, never questioning its’ ultimate meaning, and just continue in a set pattern of behavior because “that’s the way it has always been.” When we follow tradition in this passive, non-questioning way, we do not understand what we do, or why we do it. In the Gospel books of the New Testament, we read about how Jesus Christ confronted this use of tradition. The people of Jesus’ time, particularly the Pharisees, had elevated their interpretation of tradition to a place higher than that of the revealed will of God. (An example of this is found in Matthew 15: 1-9.) Take a few minutes right now to look it up and read it.
The second extreme is to obliterate or invalidate tradition entirely. The modern society in which we live tends to swing to this extreme. There is much value and wisdom in learning from our past. Traditions are a part of how we do this. Our ancestors teach us their wisdom through tradition. Traditions instruct us with value from our past. (Please refer to Exodus 12:1-4.) Traditions help form our life paradigm in either a positive or a negative way.
We all have boundaries that we operate within, perhaps consciously or unconsciously. Sometimes these are healthy, and sometimes they are not. I will not jump out of an airplane without a parachute. I consider this a healthy boundary. (Actually, I have never parachuted, but I would like to. I am just using this as an example.) Some people operate within a rigid set of boundaries without understanding why those boundaries exist or what their purpose is. The reason my parachute boundary exists is to keep my body from hitting the ground with undue force should I decide to jump out of an airplane. People who operate within unhealthy, rigid boundaries as their default mode will reject and invalidate anything that is outside of those boundaries. If this is the case, the person’s boundaries become their prison. There is nothing wrong with questioning boundaries, but we question to understand. Our boundaries are part of what make up our life paradigm. Some people are imprisoned within a wrong perception of life.
So, as I have said, one component in the makeup of our paradigm may be tradition. The next is boundaries. There should be things that you simply will not due. If you are married, any romantic or sexual involvement with anyone other than your spouse should be off limits. This is a proper boundary. An unhealthy element of a person’s paradigm might be reaction against something. For some people, this force is anger. A person who has been wronged in some way, for example, a person who was abused as a child, be it emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, may learn at an early age to view the world through the lens of anger. This doesn’t have to be the way a wronged person perceives life, but it can be.
I might also note here that it may be a perceived, and not a legitimate wrong committed against the person. For example, in Genesis, chapter four, we read about the first recorded act of murder in human history. This murder was the result of this type of perceived, not legitimate wrong. Cain, whom we assume was the firstborn son of Adam and Eve, was jealous of his younger brother Abel. The Bible says that God looked with favor on the offering of Abel, but He did not look with favor on the offering of Cain. We learn here that it is not the content of the offering that was the issue, it was the heart attitude of the giver that displeased God. Abel probably gave with a willing and generous heart. This pleased God. There was something about Cain’s heart attitude that displeased God. Maybe he gave with a begrudging heart. All this is speculation on my part, I admit, because the Scripture doesn’t really say. Nevertheless, this made Cain mad. He stewed in his anger. God warned Cain that if he continued to let his anger get the better of him that sin would be his master, and a curse would follow him. God had not wronged Cain in any way, and He did offer help to him with His words of warning. Abel had not wronged Cain in any way. Cain’s perception of reality was distorted. He perceived a wrong that had never been committed, he held that anger in his heart, and it lead him to kill his brother.
I am not saying that all wrongs committed against a person are merely perceived wrongs. Many of them are very real, and when these types of things happen to a person, (being abused for example,) it is natural to get angry. Anger is a normal reaction in these types of situations. But a person who has been wronged has to look at how the anger is affecting him in a negative and destructive manner, even if their anger is justifiable. Sometimes we just have to let things go for our own good.
A sad fact of the world that we live in is that there are whole societies of people whose life paradigm seems to be based on anger and hatred. Some societies seem to be in a constant conflict over social and border conflicts. A good example is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Modern history is replete with peace treaties that have been drafted, signed, and then almost immediately broken between Israel and Palestine to the point of absurdity. Another example is the emergence of Al-Qaeda, (and more recently ISIS.) Al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist Sunni movement founded by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri around 1988. The most notable characteristic of this movement, as we have been too painfully made aware, since the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, is Al-Qaeda’s call for global jihad. While it may be noted that there is more to the Islamic concept of jihad than this militant aspect, it can’t be rightfully argued that there is ever any justification for these types of acts of violence against innocent people, no matter what the ideological basis.
These are extreme examples of life paradigms formed on the basis of anger and hatred. As I have stated in the examples of people who have been hurt in some way, theirs’ is subtle, but just as wrongly a motivated paradigm of life.
We may be motivated, or driven by anger, and not even realize that this is the force that is driving us. We don’t take the time to analyze it, we just react. This reactionary drive is still based on a set of wrong assumptions. The reason many people are angry is because they have been hurt or disappointed in some way. There is something that wells up inside of us when we are wronged that shouts, “What they did to me was wrong!” Our default tendency is to react, and strike back. I believe that we are hardwired with an inherent sense of justice. This is not explained by evolution. It is part of our being created in the image of God, because God is just.
I have been speaking about both our individual paradigms, and in a broader sense, paradigms as they shape the way people in any given society, at different periods in time, interpret the world around them.
One interesting thing about our paradigms is that we always think ours is the right one. We have a tendency to look back with arrogant pride at the paradigms of previous generations, paradigms that have since been proven erroneous, and yet we don’t realize that, because our knowledge is finite as well, our current paradigms may also, at some point in the future, be proven flawed and become obsolete.
Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, in How to Read a Book, make the following statements, which I find to be very enlightening:
“Facts are to some extent, conventional. Facts change, we say. We mean that some propositions that are considered to be facts in one epoch are no longer considered to be facts in another. Insofar as facts are “true” and represent reality, they cannot change, of course, because truth, strictly speaking, does not change, nor does reality. But not all propositions that we take to be true are really true; and we must concede that almost any given proposition that we take to be true can be falsified by more patient or more accurate observation and investigation. This applies particularly to the facts of science.”
Paradigms have a way of becoming obsolete over time. Doctors used to think that bleeding people was a legitimate means of ridding people of diseases. It was thought that since diseases are contained within the blood, if you let out enough of a person’s blood in increments, the blood cells would replenish, and this would eventually regenerate new, disease free blood cells. We now know that idea was ludicrous. It was once thought that antibiotics were the cure all for bacterial infections. We are beginning to realize how the overuse of antibiotics to fight bacterial infections may have long term adverse effects. The paradigm that sees antibiotics as a cure all for bacterial infections is being challenged. The same is true for the overuse of pesticides. Not only do pesticides harm the environment, because pesticides have been so overused, many species of insects have built up immunities to the pesticides, and they are no longer effective. The pesticides have to be made stronger or changed. Much has been written lately about the overuse of antibiotics in the mass production of meat. Chickens, hogs, cows, and many other animals we eat regularly are being bred and contained within confined quarters. This subjects the animals to more threat of disease. To offset this, antibiotics are given to the animals, and this makes them also more harmful for our consumption.
Malaria, a disease caused by a parasite carried by mosquitos, is one of the greatest killers on the planet right now. With all our medical advances and new technologies, malaria deaths are on a rapid increase in some areas of the world. The malaria parasite has become resistant to many anti-malaria drugs. Paradigm shifts need to occur in our approach to many of these issues.
Another area where we are in dire need of a paradigm shift in our age is in the field of transportation. I recommend reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas L. Friedman, FSG Books, 2008, for a thorough explanation of the challenges we face. Much of the economy of the developed world is dependent on oil for fueling the internal combustion engines that power most of our methods of transportation. We also use it for the production of power. We have to stop burning oil. This is a train wreck waiting to happen, and we have known it for years. A paradigm shift here is overdue.
Our paradigms always change, eventually. Within the last one hundred years we have seen the theories, or paradigms of anthropologists and astronomers revised and rewritten literally hundreds of times. Theories that, at one time, seemed to be “the answer” or correct interpretation of archeological data are later proven faulty as new information emerges. It seems that every time another extinct primate bone fragment is unearthed, all the anthropology textbooks have to be rewritten. I can’t possibly begin to count the number of times I have received new editions of Time and National Geographic magazines that have covered stories about some new anthropological find that has rocked the anthropological community and challenged all of the previous theories.
History seems to prove that our paradigms will always change and eventually become obsolete. With that in mind, I pose a question: “Is there a true, legitimate paradigm that exists, on which we can base our lives, that is not based on the theories or ideologies of any given generation within the history of mankind?” (This would have to be a paradigm that is not subject to change. With what we know of paradigms, this would seem to be a huge paradox.) Is there such a thing as “ultimate reality”, a way of interpreting life that is not based on the shifting sands of contemporary thought? Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
The reason that I have written this is because I would like to challenge you, the reader, to examine how you think, and how you interpret life. Why do you think the way that you do? What is your foundation for interpreting life? What influences have come into play in your life to form your paradigm? Have you ever stopped to think about this? Personally, it took me a long time in my own life to realize that I struggled with feelings of rejection. These feelings originated in me at an early age and influenced the way I interpreted my interactions with others, and things that happened to me. My perception was flawed, and had to change. Our basic paradigms affect all aspects of our lives, our feelings and emotions, our psychological makeup, our interaction with others, and the challenges of life that we face.
Societal paradigms are imposed on us as individuals and affect our own paradigms, or the way we interpret life. We have all been influenced by many societal paradigms that we have not taken the time, or put forth the effort to examine and question. Some of the ideologies (societal paradigms) that have helped to shape the paradigms of our generation include: Evolution, Relativism, Freudian Psychology, Theology, and Secular Humanism, to name a few. These systems of thought have shaped the paradigms that are taught in our education systems.
The Relativist will say that there is no such thing as ultimate reality. The Greek sophist Protagoras has said: “Man is the measure of all things.” This is the pinnacle of arrogance. Another popular way of saying this is that what is morally right is whatever brings the most good (meaning, in this context, temporary happiness) to the greatest number of people. The problem here is, who defines this? Who sets the criteria and measures the results? It is all too subjective. Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, and Joseph Stalin all thought they knew what was best for the mass of humanity under their rule. History tells of the incomprehensible amount of misery brought on mankind by these men. Communists think they know what is best for the mass of humanity under their control. We don’t think that Communism has the answer, so obviously that ideology is wrong.
I have heard people make statements that go something like this: “Whatever works for you, (meaning your beliefs or ideologies,) may not be what works for me.” Or “We all have to find our own reality.” I see this as a frustrated and futile way of interpreting life. What if my version of reality clashes with your version of reality? Who wins and determines how things are done? The reason that this can’t be a reliable paradigm for life is because people’s ideas about what they think they need to make them happy or fulfilled are fickle and subject to change frequently. When I was ten years old, my ideas about what would make my life happy and fulfilled were much different from what they are now. If I live long enough, I am sure those ideas will continue to change.
The Relativist’s view of life says that there is no such thing as ultimate truth, but truth as we understand it at any given point of time is defined in terms of whatever is occurring right then. Moral Relativism is a system of thought that has poisoned the thinking of our generation. It is a self-contradicting philosophy. If a person thinks that there is no such thing as ultimate truth, then the statement, “There is no such thing as ultimate truth” cannot ultimately be true. It would only be true within the context that they are using it, which makes no sense. So, if the statement: “There is no such thing as ultimate truth” cannot be ultimately true, then the opposite statement: “There is such a thing as ultimate truth” has to be ultimately true, because it can’t be both. You can’t say that something is and is not at the same time. That makes no sense, and does not correspond to reality. If you say that neither statement can be true, then language doesn’t mean anything. Language has to mean something. Language cannot be meaningless, so the Relativist’s assertion that there is no such thing as ultimate truth is also meaningless. Do you see the problem with this ridiculous form of circular logic?
It is impossible for language to be meaningless. Our need for language to make sense is as great as our need for water for survival. You are reading these words right now, and your brain is comprehending them in some capacity. Because that is so, you have to come to the conclusion that the language we are using to communicate is not subjective. It is objective. We don’t determine in a private manner what each word means. That is nonsense. It is my contention that language did not evolve. That is not to say that language is not fluid, because it is. The meaning of words changes over time, because the way we, as a society use them changes. Language must have had a supernatural (metaphysical) origin. Language did not evolve as a result of pre-human primates figuring out each other’s grunts. The Genesis account of Creation explains this in that God made man with the ability to talk the very second he was created, because God spoke to Adam immediately.
Since language must have meaning, the relativist’s conclusion about reality cannot be correct, so, consequently Ultimate Truth must exist.
Truth is not subjective, it is objective. “Subjective truth”, which is what the relativist promotes, is an oxymoron. Ultimate reality, or ultimate truth if you want to use that term, must originate outside our own realm of understanding or interpretation. There has to be an objective, permanent paradigm for life that is not based on the whims of contemporary thought.
Getting back to my question: “Is there a true, legitimate paradigm that exists, on which we can base our understanding of life, that is not based on the theories, or ideologies of any given generation within the history of mankind?” It is my contention that the answer to that question is “Yes, such a paradigm does exist!” There is such a thing as Ultimate Reality, and there is such a thing as truth that does not change. With that in mind, the next question I ask is: “How do we determine what that paradigm is?”
Since we must conclude that human knowledge is finite, if the true paradigm exists, and can be understood and lived out, it has to be one that does not originate within finite human reasoning.
The problem with our modern way of thinking, the mode of thinking that has been influenced by what we refer to as the “Enlightenment”, is that we have elevated human reasoning to the place of omniscience. We think that because something is outside the grasp of our reasoning, that it can’t exist, or it is not true. This is an arrogant way of thinking. If you subscribe to the evolutionist’s interpretation of reality, that everything evolved from lower life forms to higher life forms through the survival of the strongest organisms, at what point in this random chain of events did the reasoning power of humans, (merely a more highly developed primate, according to this theory,) become so trustworthy as to be infallible? Perhaps we have not reached that point in our evolution yet.
So, since knowledge is finite, the true paradigm has to have a metaphysical origin. It has to originate outside, or beyond man. Man’s ability to reason and communicate must have originated outside of himself. It did not evolve out of nothing. Language itself had to have originated outside of man. Philosophy cannot answer the question of ultimate reality because philosophy is dependent on man’s finite reasoning. Science, in and of itself, cannot answer the question of our origin, nor understand ultimate reality because science is dependent on how we observe and interpret the behavior of matter. Science can predict, with a measure of accuracy, by observing repeated patterns.
In plain English, this is just another way of saying that the true paradigm originated with God. Many people do not like the idea of bringing God into the equation. As soon as you mention God, all manner of defenses against that thought begin to operate within people’s minds. One of the first problems people will bring up is that there are so many different religions in the world that no one can know which one is right. I have heard that argument a thousand times. I do not deny that this issue can be confusing, nor do I deny that this is a legitimate question. How can we know? All of the major world religions contradict each other. Since they are all so contradictory, they either all have to be wrong, or one of them has to be right, and all the rest wrong. It defies logic to say that more than one can be true. They may all contain elements of truth, but the ultimate conclusions are contradictory.
Two contradictory conclusions cannot both be true. They are either both false, or one is true and the other is false. A blade of grass is either green or red, or it is neither. It cannot be green and red simultaneously. To say that the color of the blade of grass is dependent on the perception of the person observing it plummets us into the abyss of meaningless relativism. If reality is subject to our individual interpretation, then we have no basis for meaningful communication. If you call one animal an elephant, and I call a completely different animal an elephant, we cannot communicate. That does not make sense. That is not to say that our interpretations of reality cannot be faulty, but that does not affect reality itself. There are many mentally ill people in the world whose interpretation of reality is certainly faulty, but that does not change reality. The fact that some people do not adhere to the true paradigm does not negate its’ existence.
If any of the world’s religions, or metaphysical explanations, can offer an adequate paradigm to explain ultimate reality, one of them has to be right, and the rest have to be wrong, or they all have to be wrong. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of reality. The classical view of metaphysics assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist independently of any observer. That simply means that reality exists regardless of what we think of it, or how we interpret it. (This reeks of Creationism, doesn’t it? But, oh how they hate using that term!) The modern view of metaphysics assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist inside the mind of the observer. So, classical metaphysics and modern metaphysics are at polar opposites. In my use of the term metaphysics, I am adhering to the classical view. In my opinion, classical metaphysical reasoning sounds more like theology, but it does not use the same terminology.
In comparing religions, I will use Christianity and Hinduism to make my point. One of the primary theological tenets of Christianity is that God exists as a triune being, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He created everything, but is not Himself a part of creation, and He is not dependent on the creation for anything. On the other hand, Hinduism teaches that there is one life force (Brahma) that is comprised of everything. In other words, God (Brahma) is everything, and everything is God (Brahma). The deity can be manifest in many different apparitions, known as avatars. This is where we get the word that is used in video games. The player controls a virtual being that represents him or her in the game. If you do away with the creation, you do away with Brahma, because it is everything.
Either the Christian concept of God, and the Hindu concept of God are both wrong, or one of them is right, which means the other one has to be wrong. They cannot both be right. It has to be one or the other. It does not make sense for it to be both, because that is a contradiction. This is true of all contradicting statements or ideas, theories, paradigms, or philosophies. If there is such a thing as truth, which I content there is, despite what we do or do not believe or think, and that truth is definable, two opposite or contradictory concepts cannot both be true. If we say that none of them, (meaning the world’s religions,) are true, we do away with the option of a metaphysical explanation, which puts us back in the relativist’s quagmire of meaninglessness, or the naturalist’s perpetually frustrated attempt to explain the origins of life based on data provided by science.
The naturalist’s theories are constantly coming to frustrated dead ends. I encourage you to read as much of the latest material in this field as you can. You may not gain as much satisfaction from this as you expect. The interesting thing about naturalism (meaning: the attempt to explain the origins of life based entirely on the analysis of the components of biology,) is that when the leading researchers and proponents of this approach honestly stick to their own rules, their research continues to prove the improbabilities of their theories. Research continues to uncover more unexpected complexity. The not so simple interpretation of basic molecular structures continues to prove to be more complex than originally thought. The probability that any of the most basic molecular forms of life could have originated by chance is so improbable that it staggers the imagination.
You may agree with me up to this point that the possibility of a metaphysical or supernatural answer does exist, but you may be thinking that up to this point in history no one has discovered it. This seems highly unlikely. The real paradigm must be something that resonates within the heart of man as being true. Because that is so, it seems unlikely that we, as a race of intelligent beings, could have existed for this long without anyone discovering it, or more accurately, had it revealed to them. It is my contention that, within every generation of people that have existed, there has been a number of people who have had this paradigm revealed to them, and understood it. The fact is, this paradigm cannot be discovered, it has to be revealed. If that paradigm exists, and originated outside of us, we cannot discover it. It must be intentionally revealed to us by its originator. The paradigm is real, and it is here. It is knowable. It is not changed by what we do, or do not know. It is not changed by what we think, or how we feel.
How many times have you heard someone say something like this: “All religions are just roads that all lead to the same place”? One error that is often made in the attempt to reconcile differing belief systems is that of trying to harmonize all of the world’s religions and reduce them to their lowest common denominators. This is what is referred to as syncretism. This means to synchronize them. Our society seems to have developed a very reductionist view of life. Although this methodology does help to simplify some kinds of information and make it more understandable, (think of the popular “For Dummies” books,) it is an inadequate method for interpreting the deep issues of life. It is an approach that gave birth to many partial truths, and ultimately distorts our ultimate conclusions about things. If two belief systems are at polar opposites about the ultimate meaning of life, how can they be harmonized? That is like putting oil in water and shaking. They do not mix. When the shaking stops, the oil will separate from the water. It does not mix.
Let’s look at that statement “All religions are just roads that lead to the same place” for a moment. While that may sound nice, and make people feel good, think about the logic behind that conclusion for a moment. I cannot get to the beach from my house just by jumping in my car and taking any road at random and expect to get to the beach. All roads do not lead to the beach. Some roads will never take me to the beach, no matter how far I drive on them. Different people cannot express the same truth using contradicting terminology. They can use different terminology, but not contradicting terminology. The terminology is simply the tool for expressing the underlying idea. For example, one doctor in an emergency room may say, “The patient is dead.” Another doctor may say, “Mrs. Jones has expired.” They are both saying the same thing, using different terminology, the meaning does not change. That is not the same as one doctor saying, “The patient is dead,” and the other doctor saying, “the patient is alive.” The patient can’t be dead and alive at the same time. That is nonsense. One of the doctors has to be right and the other wrong. If truth exists, some ideas or beliefs about it have to be true, and the contradicting ideas or beliefs have to be wrong. This is not a popular stance to take in a pluralistic thinking society that operates under the philosophy that everyone’s ideas and beliefs are equally valid.
The simple fact of the matter is that everyone’s ideas and beliefs are not valid, and the people that say that they are don’t really believe that themselves, despite all their rhetoric. They just haven’t taken the time to think through how they contradict that in their own view of things and their actions. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. Think with me for a moment about September 11, 2001, in New York City. We all know what happened. Al-Qaeda terrorists hi-jacked two jet airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, killing thousands of people. Is there something in that act that offends your sensibilities? Is there something inside of you that screams out, “They had no right to kill innocent people!” That is your belief. Does that contradict the beliefs of those who committed these acts of violence? Of course it does. In their view of reality, what they did was perfectly reasonable and acceptable. The Islamic extremists see nothing wrong with ending the lives of those they view as infidels. So who is ultimately right? Both? No, of course not. It can’t be both. Real truth has to be objective, not subjective.
If a true, unchangeable paradigm exists, and that paradigm originated with God, it would stand to reason that God would not reveal Himself in contradictory ways to different people groups. There is a tremendous difference between what Muslims believes about God, or Allah as they call Him, and what Hinduism, and her daughter religion, Buddhism, believes about God. Hinduism and Buddhism do not claim to the only path to enlightenment, as Islam and Christianity do. How can they all be true if they are all so different? The simple fact of the matter is that they cannot all be true. Truth exists and error exists simultaneously.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are valid and invalid beliefs about God. Why do people have such a hard time accepting this? We have been cast under a spell that uses the jargon of tolerance and acceptance that distorts the truth. Do not misunderstand what I am saying here. We should not only be tolerant and accepting of all races and cultures on this planet, but should embrace them with love. However, there is a difference between accepting and embracing people and accepting and embracing lies.
There is a right answer, as well as wrong answers to all questions. We apply this logic to other things. Why do we not apply it to the most important things of life? In any math problem, there is a right answer, and there can be wrong answers. There is a right way, and there are wrong ways of going about solving the problem. Math is not a matter of private interpretation. It makes no sense to say, “Well, two plus two may equal four to you, but to me it equals seven.” If that is the case, then math means nothing. When a math test is given, no sane teacher would say, “Every student’s answer is right and valid” (unless, of course, all the students who took the test came up with the right answers.) The teacher would not give a student who came up with all the wrong answers a passing grade because they took the test with sincerity. It is possible to be sincerely wrong.
At this time, I could make a comparison of all the world’s religions, but that is beyond the scope of what I hope to accomplish in this writing. I would strongly advise anyone reading this to study this matter thoroughly. Some may argue that they do not have the time to do this. To that I say, “make the time.” It is literally a matter of life or death. I am not saying that it is necessary to become an expert, but knowing the basics for comparison purposes is very useful.
If there is such a thing as truth, which I hope I have sufficiently proven that there is, all of us have a responsibility to find the truth and live by it. We all spend huge amounts of time unnecessarily doing other things. We must make the time to dig into the very core truths of life itself. I have never heard anyone who has found out they do not have long to live wailing on about how they regret not playing more video games, or not spending more time watching television, or eating more hot dogs. I have heard a lot of people in this predicament lamenting that they have wasted so much time and effort on things that are ultimately not important
Earlier I made the statement that if the true paradigm existed, and it originated outside of us, it would have to be revealed, or shown to us. Any paradigm that originates with God has to be one that He reveals to us. He has to be the one to take the initiative in the contact for the disclosure of the revelation. We do not have the capacity, as finite beings, to discover it within our own frame of reference.
For Christians, there is such a paradigm. Our paradigm starts with a given. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The proponents of the big bang theory also start with a given. “In the beginning, there was a mass of matter, or a primordial atom.” Either way, you have to have a starting point, an implied “Once upon a time.” Every story has to start somewhere. I prefer starting with God instead of a primordial atom. The existence of God before anything else is the beginning of our story. This is the constant that is needed in order for the problem of life to be solved.
Some will ask, just as I have, “Where did God come from?” Simply stated, that is a question that cannot be answered. If you ask someone who espouses the so called scientific (Godless) approach, the question, “Where did the mass of matter, or the primordial atom come from?”, that is also a question that cannot be answered. It is as simple, and as complex as that. We don’t know. We start life as children with unanswerable questions. “Why is the grass green?” I can explain the complexity of the grass molecule (if there is such a thing) and still not be able to answer the “why” question. I don’t know. Why are we so afraid of that simple phrase? Have you ever met someone who acts like they have an answer for everything? That kind of person annoys me. They will come up with something to say every time, even if they don’t have a clue, they will not simply say, “I don’t know.” I don’t know why they are like that!
What if you are a person who says, “I don’t believe in God, I believe in Science.” To that I ask, “Where did science come from?” At what point in our “evolution” did our reasoning ability become trustworthy? If we started out as unreasoning primates ruled by instinct, how do we know if our evolution has reached the stage where our current reasoning abilities have sufficiently evolved to be trustworthy? What if they haven’t? Regardless of what any of us say we believe we all start with something that cannot be proven in the scientific sense.
Christianity maintains that God has revealed the paradigm of ultimate reality to us in the person of Jesus Christ. Doesn’t it make sense, since we are people, that God reveals Himself to us in the form of a person? This is not the same thing as a Hindu avatar. It has only happened one time, and it will never happen again. This paradigm is God’s self-disclosure of Himself to us. Jesus said, “He who has seen me, has seen the Father.” Colossians 1:15-20 reads as follows: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”
Not only has God given us the ultimate revelation of Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ, God has been revealing Himself to mankind since the beginning of Creation. When God created Adam, the first thing He did was speak to the man, and Adam understood Him. There was no mystery. Adam did not act as if something strange was happening, it all seemed perfectly natural. But Adam was created as a free moral agent. He was created with the ability to listen to God, and obey Him, thus showing that he understood that he was totally dependent on God. He was also given to the ability to choose to not obey God, and declare his independence, which he did, by believing the lie of the devil. This was a very bad choice. When Adam disobeyed God, God withdrew His presence from Adam, and his wife Eve. In Adam, the first man, mankind moved away from God, the source of life and perfection, and moved into darkness, sin, and death. The story of mankind is the story of darkness, sin and death.
The Christian paradigm maintains that, because of Adam’s sin, man’s nature was changed. Man no longer lives in the image of his Creator, he lives in the fallen image of our first father, Adam, and because of that, we are born with an inclination towards sin. This is what is referred to in Christian theology as Original Sin. God did not create us this way, we did this to ourselves.
Some people will maintain that babies are born innocent, and are corrupted by their environment. Reality does not prove this to be true. Don’t misunderstand what I am saying here. I love babies, and I love children, but I am not unrealistic about the nature of man. You can bring a child up in the best environment imaginable, but that environment will not guarantee that the child will turn out with a good heart. It is important to influence children in the right way, but at the end of the day, they ultimately choose their own way. As a father, I wish this were not so. I wish I could program into my own children (who are not children any more) to be good, and always make the right choices, but I can’t. They have to make up their own minds. People in the best circumstances, with good educations, and good surroundings still do stupid and evil things. Nations of people make needless war with each other. This is reality. Our paradigm has to match reality, and not ideology, or it is no good. The Christian doctrine of Original Sin matches reality.
The Christian paradigm also maintains that God revealed Himself to the Patriarchs, and then the nation of Israel. He revealed Himself to the prophets. All this was in preparation for His ultimate revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. God has always been working throughout the course of history to reveal Himself to mankind as the Creator, the sustainer of life, the lawgiver, the judge and the Savior.
Until the time of Christ, God had not revealed Himself to mankind as a person, with the exception of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve knew God as a person as He walked with them in the cool of the day in the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 3) Then when they disobeyed God and rebelled against Him, they were cast out of the Garden of Eden (the perfect environment). God withdrew His visible presence from them. From that point on, God only revealed Himself to people through theophanies, (angels), dreams, revelations through the prophets, and supernatural phenomenon, such as when He revealed Himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush, and to the Israelites through the pillars of fire and cloud as they fled from Egypt during the exodus. Most importantly, God revealed Himself through the words of the prophets, which have been recorded by the scribes in the canon of Scripture. God has caused all of this to be recorded and preserved for us. This is miraculous in and of itself. God speaks to us of His creative power through the marvels and beauty of nature. Evolution cannot explain to us why we marvel at the wonder and beauty of nature. Random chaos does not produce beauty. It produces a mess.
God, the eternal, all-powerful being, created mankind to be like Himself. Unlike Hinduism which sees deity in all forms of life, from the cobra to the kangaroo, Christianity maintains that God created man differently. This is one element of how the paradigm God has revealed to us in Christ is so radically different from that which we find in man’s systems of thought, and in all of the world’s other religions. Man does not have the capability, within his own reasoning, to ever come to the correct conclusions about life or ultimate reality (the right paradigm), unless that reasoning ability is aided by supernatural revelation. The paradigm must come to us from outside ourselves, and it has.
Suppose you were born in a prison camp and never had the chance to experience life outside of the prison camp. All of your knowledge of the outside world would be information you obtained from books, magazines, radio, television, and the internet, provided you had access to these things. You might even gain insight from conversations with other people who lived on the outside. These resources that I have mentioned would help form your paradigm of what life outside of the prison camp is like. The problem with this is that information can be biased and/or distorted. The presentation of news can be slanted with a political or ideological bias. The presentation of historical information can be altered or falsified. The Nazi party intentionally distorted the presentation of the history of Germany to manipulate the masses. In our generation, the internet is inundated with false news stories created intentionally for the sole purpose of getting people to click on imbedded web-links that mine user data. It is disgusting. The concern that I have is that some of what is being presented as historical fact in our educational institutions is being slanted in the attempt to be politically correct and non-offensive. This is what is known as propaganda. History can be altered to suit some political or ideological agenda. Also, scientific theory is presented as if it were fact. Evolution is taught as if it were fact, instead of being presented as one theory among many.
In this environment (meaning the hypothetical prison), it is impossible for a person to come to the right conclusions about what life outside the prison camp is really like. If it is not experienced, it is all second hand news, filtered through someone else’s paradigm. In a sense, we are all like this prisoner to a degree. We interact with our environment through our five senses. Our perception of reality is formed through what we see, hear, smell, taste and feel and how we interpret that data. Our physical senses are a type of prison that keep us from experiencing ultimate reality if those senses are all we depend on to find truth. Our own finitude is a prison, unless the revelation of ultimate reality comes to us from a source that is greater than our own senses.
This truth is the basis for the movie “The Matrix”. The movie is based on the novel written by Andy and Larry Wachowski, and released in movie form on March 31, 1999. For those of you who have not seen the movie, or read the book, the story line goes something like this:
The story is set in the not so distant future, at a time when robots (some type of machines with artificial intelligence) have taken over planet Earth. Humanity has been overthrown by these (for lack of a better term) robots. The robots keep the humans as prisoners in some weird, cocoon-like environment so they can use the humans’ body heat as a fuel source. The robots use the humans as batteries. The robots keep the humans hooked up to some apparatus that feeds their minds a simulated reality (the Matrix), so the humans think they are living, but they are really not. They are in a kind of dream state. Their minds are so engrossed in the Matrix that they do not even realize that they are being held hostage, and used as batteries. The Matrix is tailored to each individual. The gist of the movie involves a messiah type character named Neo (new) being set free from the cocoon prison by a group of humans who have managed to escape being captured by the robots. They are working to set others free from the matrix.
As I stated earlier about the real paradigm of ultimate reality needing to be given to us from outside ourselves, Neo’s simulated world had to be invaded from without. (His paradigm had to be changed from outside himself.) This rebel band of humans, led by a man named Morphesus invaded Neo’s simulated reality and set him free from the matrix so he could join them in their battle against the robots, and the matrix, and ultimately free humanity. In a very real sense, lost humanity is just like these captured humans. A malevolent power has pulled the wool over our eyes so we do not see reality correctly. I will speak more on that momentarily.
A few quotes from the movie are very enlightening:
Morpheus: “The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now in this room. You can see it when you look out your window. Or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work. When you go to church. When you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
…you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage. Born into a prison that you cannot smell, or taste, or touch. A prison… for your mind.”
A similar idea is presented by the late Frank Zappa in a song called “The Slime”:
“I am gross and perverted, I’m obsessed and deranged, I have existed for years, but very little has changed. I’m the tool of the government, and industry too, I am destined to rule and regulate you. I might be vile and pernicious, but you can’t look away. I make you think I’m delicious with the stuff that I say. I’m the best you can get. Have you guessed me yet? I am the slime oozing out from your TV set. You will obey me while I lead you, eat the garbage that I feed you, until the day that we don’t need you. Don’t call for help, no one will heed you. Your mind is totally controlled, it has been stuffed into the mold, and you will do as you are told, until the rights to you are sold.”
In “The Matrix” Neo was incapable, on his own, of understanding that he was in a mental prison. The Matrix had his mind, (as well as everyone else’s) blinded to reality. Morpheus and his followers had to invade Neo’s world and set him free from The Matrix. In order to wage war against the captors and be victorious, the matrix had to be infiltrated and broken from the inside out.
The fact is, that this is the condition of the human race currently. The world is under a spell of deception and death. Satan, the fallen angel, has the eyes of fallen mankind blinded to the truth, and consequently, to ultimate reality, which is God’s true order. Our human centered paradigms are based on intentionally distorted data. 2 Corinthians 4:4 states: “The god of this age (Adam made Satan the lord of this world when he rebelled) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (Doesn’t this sound very Matrix like?)
This may sound like a complicated issue, but it is really not complicated at all when you understand a few things:
First: A good, holy, righteous, all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God created everything that exists. That is the first given of the Christian paradigm. Everything that exists has to have a first cause. God IS that first cause. Do you have a problem with that statement? Let me ask you this: What is the alternative? Which makes more sense, to believe in a Creator, or to believe everything that exists, in all of the wonder and beauty of the universe is the result of blind, unthinking evolutionary chance? The more we discover about our universe, the more it looks like something that was intentionally made, just like a computer is made, by someone with a mind, not random chance. A working paradigm of life for me has to be logical. It has to line up with reality. Everything I see around me in nature looks very much like something that was created by a wonderful artist with a thinking and creating mind. Starting with some mumbo jumbo about a primordial atom exploding in space doesn’t make sense. Anything of a complex nature has to be made, it doesn’t just fall into place accidentally. There has to be a creative mind behind it. If we understand that this is true of what we call things like machines, why do we reason differently when it comes to the wonderful beauty and complexity of what we call nature? The same principle applies. The Universe appears to be a very ordered place. The planets have to all orbit at just the right speeds, at just the right angles, or everything would just crash. We do not see this happening. It is like a finely tuned machine. To me, it makes more sense to think that this is the result of an ordered, creative being with a mind, not random chance.
Second: Man’s system of reasoning, apart from God, proves to be an illogical and frustrated attempt at explaining reality. It ultimately gives no real answers. It proves to be a maddening form of circular logic that goes nowhere. Thus, we are back to the metaphysical paradigm. Some being, (not some vague power, such as “The Force”: in Star Wars) greater than ourselves (AKA “God”) has to reveal the explanation of ultimate reality. If you were in an art museum, looking at Van Gogh’s “Wheatfield with Crows” and trying to figure out its meaning, would you rather have a local art critique explain it to you, or would you prefer that Vincent Van Gogh himself explain it to you? Personally, I would prefer the latter. I want to know how God, the artist, explains the world, and the universe He created, not some atheistic scientist.
Let me ask you this: If you are still unsure of this possibility, would you consider that it is possible that your mind (like the captive humans in “The Matrix) has indeed been blinded to the truth by a malevolent being (AKA: Satan)? Could your paradigm (your Matrix) be keeping you from seeing the truth? Could your paradigm be your prison?
In the movie, whenever anyone who was enslaved to the matrix experienced déjà vu, it was a sign that their captors had altered something in the matrix. It was an ever so slight crack in their simulated reality. The subtle awareness of this was the point that Morpheus and his followers used to break into the slave’s mind, and free the captive from the matrix.
Are you comfortable in your paradigm of life, or does it sometimes seem if something is not quite right? I believe that everyone experiences this sense of déjà vu occasionally, the feeling that maybe there is a crack in their reality. Maybe it is during these times that we should stop, and take the time to investigate this. What does it mean? Why is it happening?
The Naturalist will say that man is basically good, and that evil is the result of ignorance, bad influence, and superstition. This is the ideology that governs much of public education and politics. The thinking goes something like this: “If we spend enough money, put in place enough of the right programs, educate and influence our kids with the right tools, and opportunities, then things will turn out okay.” It sounds great. The only problem is that it is not true. As I stated earlier, my desire is for my life paradigm to line up with what I know of reality. This ideology, the belief that man is basically good does not line up with reality. Real life experience seems to show that man is not basically good. People left to their own devices are selfish, narcissistic, and prone to do bad things when there does not appear to be any circumstantial repercussions to their bad behavior.
We were originally good. As I said, God created us in His image, and His image is good. Everything God created is good. He pronounced it good, and was pleased with it. But God also created man with a free will, a will to choose. Man had the choice of obeying God, and living in a relationship of dependence on Him, or going his own way. Our first parents made the wrong choice. Before you write the story of Adam and Eve off as a myth, know that even anthropologists, who explain things in a manner in opposition to the Scriptural explanation, think that mankind all had a common ancestor. Because Adam and Eve made the wrong choice and turned away from God, which they had no logical reason for doing, other than the fact that they listened to a lie, sin and death entered the realm of human existence and took control. God told them that this is what would happen, so they were without excuse. Sin is the Matrix that controls lost humanity.
If, in fact, a good, righteous, holy, all-powerful and all-knowing God created everything to be good, then something has gone terribly wrong. Something, or someone is keeping us from seeing life as it really is. We have been duped! If that is not so, then why is the world in such a mess? The entire history of mankind is nothing but a repeated cycle of empires rising and falling, and people killing each other.
The opening chapters of Genesis explain this to anyone honest enough to look for the truth. They explain the predicament of man, and the explanation makes sense, and lines up with reality as we know it. The infinite God created the world, then created mankind, a finite representation (reflection) of Himself. After God made man, He gave man rule over the Earth. God gave man dominion over the Earth. He put us in charge of the Earth. However, because the Creator’s will is to receive man’s unadulterated love, He created man with a free will. Real love has to be a choice of free will.
Contrary to modern notions of romance, love is not a feeling, or an emotion (although love certainly affects our feelings and emotions). Love is an act of the will. It is a choice. The Bible says, “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” Since God’s very essence is love, it is impossible for Him not to desire man’s love for Him. Free will means that we have the capacity to choose to believe God, or not believe God. When we choose not to believe God, who is truth, we choose to believe a lie. It is impossible to not to choose. When you reject the truth, by default, you embrace the lie. There is no neutral ground. As God is love, God is also truth. Adam and Eve were created with free will. He chose to disobey God and believe a lie, even though he had no reason to do so. It just didn’t make sense.
Since Adam, we who are born in Adam’s (fallen) image, no longer have free will. Our will is enslaved to sin, until God intervenes and sets it free. Adam’s sin created the matrix that blinds our eyes to the truth. In choosing to disobey God, Adam made Satan (the fallen, lying angel) his master. That is why Satan is referred to in Scripture as “the god of this world.”
Why did God allow the liar to have access to Adam? Because love that is never tested is not real love. Love that is tested, and passes the test is real.
Why do we not believe God? We have to believe something. Even though some people may say, “I don’t believe anything…”, that is really not true, because it is impossible not to believe anything. Just as it is impossible to remain alive without breathing, it is impossible to exist and not believe anything. If it were possible for a man to not believe anything, that man would be completely immobilized, because taking any action at all requires that a man be able to take something for granted (or believe it.) If you take something for granted, that means you believe it. When I stand up, I prove that I believe (take for granted) that my legs will support my own weight. If I did not believe anything, I could not take for granted that my legs would support my own weight, I would never stand up. My standing up proves my internal belief, even though I would not verbalize it. That is a silly example, but it proves my point. If a person truly did not believe anything, they would go insane. So, it stands to reason that if a man chooses not to believe God, who is the only source of truth, by default, he chooses to believe a lie. There is no other way. When this happens, (choosing to believe the lie,) our paradigm becomes our prison. We become enslaved to the matrix.
The way out of the matrix is grace. The true paradigm, the one God has given to us from the very beginning, is the paradigm of grace. It is not dependent on the theories or ideologies of any specific point in time or place. It is not subject to man’s reasoning. Grace is God’s unmerited favor. God demonstrated His grace to us ultimately through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Triune Godhead. God loves us, not because in our fallen state we are lovable, but because it is the nature of His character to love. This is the gist of the message of the Bible. To an untrained reader, the Bible can seem very complicated and overwhelming. But this is the big picture, and this is really what the whole thing means.
God created man in His image. He put man in charge of the world to take care of it, and use it for His glory, and He gave us free will to choose. We (as in our first parents) disobeyed. We chose a lie. Because of that, mankind, and the world was plummeted into a huge mess. God has stepped into our realm of space and time, in the person of Jesus Christ. (John 1:1-5, 14) Jesus Christ has broken the matrix by offering His own life as the payment and sacrifice for our sins. Because of this, we can be forgiven, and restored to a right relationship to God.
God calls us to live out that same paradigm of grace. We forgive others because we ourselves are forgiven, not because those we forgive deserve to be forgiven. We love others, because we are loved, not because those we love deserve to be loved. He empowers us to see others as He sees them, not through our own limited, selfish lens.
Grace is the ultimate paradigm, the ultimate interpretation of reality. It is what we are meant for. Everything else pales in comparison. If we do not live in God’s unmerited favor, which comes to us only in the person of Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, then we do not really live at all. We are “The Walking Dead.”
Because God’s paradigm of ultimate reality is shown to us in the person of Jesus Christ, we see that Christ is much more than just a pattern or model of how we should live. Christ is our model, but He is much more than that. This is the paradox of grace. Most all world religions teach a system of behaviors, platitudes, maxims, or rules and laws. In other words, these are the things that you need to do to please the deity or win His favor. Christianity starts with what God has done, not what we can do. God makes His grace available to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins. Then, through the Holy Spirit, God empowers us, in a supernatural way, as we turn to Him in faith, to live as Christ lived, to be a follower (disciple) of Jesus Christ. God infuses us with the life of the Holy Spirit. By that, He restores His image to us internally. He provides us with the power to live as He desires for us to live. It is not a matter of just trying real hard to do right, because if you take that approach, you will always fail.
The paradox of this paradigm is that it is contrary to what we are taught most of our lives. We are taught to take control of our lives. God tells us to give up control of our lives. We are taught to survive, no matter what. God tells us that in order to live, we must die. We are taught that our intelligence and strength is what gives us success in life. God tells us that humans are enslaved to intellectual pride which keeps us from knowing the truth, and that in order to become truly strong, we must become weak. We are taught to be good. God tells us, that apart from His grace and presence, we cannot be good, and left to our own devices, we are inherently selfish and evil. We are taught that this life is all we have, and we have to make the most of it. God tells us that this life is simply a test. We are created as eternal beings, and this brief lifespan we live now is only the small tip of the iceberg of eternity that will be either lived in His glorious presents, or suffer eternally in damnation away from Him and everything that is good.
God takes a hardened, bitter and cynical man, and breaths the new life of heaven into his soul:
Once more, I punch the clock, and muddle through another day,
Surely I think, there must be more, surely, a better way.
If this is all there is to life, striving to succeed,
Then surely it’s a waste of time, and life’s a waste indeed.
Same old faces, same old places, nothing seems to change.
Then a stirring in my soul seems to make it all suddenly seem strange.
A voice I hear behind me, whispering soft and low,
“Yes, there is more, my child, and it’s time for you to know.”
Life abundantly is yours to have, when you give to me your heart.
Life eternally is yours, and NOW is when it starts.
Then turning, I see Jesus, the Son of God, the crucified,
To give to me eternal life is the reason that He died.
But dying wasn’t all He did, He rose up from the grave,
He conquered death in victory, all my soul to save.
He’s given joy and peace to me, yes, His love is true,
Same old faces, same old places, suddenly all seem new.
Danny's Stump 