A number of weeks ago, I had a conversation with a friend over potential connections between suffering and brilliance. At one point, I included the following phrase in my response to his argument point: “…assuming there is a God.”
(For context, we both claim to be Christians. It makes sense for these four words, so innocently slipped into the conversation, to have thrown him off.)
So, he asked me why I would say that.
My answer: I needed to remind myself of the fundamental presuppositions upon which that current discussion was built upon.
Put simply, (that is, within my personal mental framework), if there is no God the whole point of suffering and of brilliance have no deeper meaning or significance than what we define them as. If there were no greater consciousness or intelligence in this universe than what is human, the significances and perhaps even the definitions of both brilliance and logic (as well as, indeed, that of pain and suffering) are open to debate — to the point that absolute nothingness becomes a valid option. …At which point we begin to step on webs of gossamer threads spread over one bottomless pit after another, intellectually speaking.
However, I “must” — and you will see why I put that word in quotes in a minute — be aware of my building’s foundation even if I am just moving furniture around on the third floor.
Or else what if I am believing in something — in there being a God, let us say — just because that is what I was taught growing up, and simply never questioned? What if, once upon a time, I had somehow decided that this belief was unquestioned and unquestionable, and have since focused solely on building upon this belief without regard to both its validity and its relationship to the house under construction?
This bit of mental gymnastics reminds me of the Thomas Theorem which states: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” In other words: If you live as if God is real and present in your life, the way your life would be lived would reflect that belief whether or not God actually exists.
In a twisted sort of way, it definitely matters that your beliefs match up with reality…but not necessarily, and not all of the time. The scalpel-edged lines that outline such tension begin within the subjective (internal) and traces its way into the objective (external), only to end up back in the subjective where the feedback loop restarts itself. You believe things as an individual and are, to some extent, responsible for what beliefs you hold (although a part of my mind is not entirely sure one can actually choose what to believe in); the more you believe in something, the more it dictates the things you say and do; your words and actions — externalized beliefs — affect reality outside of yourself, the interactions with which re-shape your beliefs.
That is what makes knowing what you think, even when you are not entirely sure why you think so or whether what you believe is true or right, is crucial.
That being said, the nature of a belief (as held by a mind worthy of respect) requires a commitment to living out said belief by testing it against reality. Not only that, but it also requires intellectual humility and agility — the awareness of counter beliefs, and the peaceful acceptance of the existence of such alongside the belief being held. Without this thoughtful openness, one’s belief transmogrifies into dogma, turning into something meaningless and without substance or strength.
But then some might ask: “Why bother revisiting all that fundamental stuff in your conversations? Is it not a waste of your time and energy? Can you just make your mind and move forward in your thinking, instead of always circling back to square one?”
(My sister described such a mind as “tortured” and “full of agony.” A slight exaggeration, but I tend to agree.)
Putting aside personal tendencies towards masochism paired with a nearly-obsessive passion for exploring intellectual rabbit holes in philosophical la-la-lands, the only reply I give to such criticism is, I cannot do otherwise.
From a strategic mindset, the choice to maintain awareness of one’s own assumptions and core beliefs (especially ones driving not only what you talk about but why they matter in the first place) can be defined as attempts to avoid “Advanced Stupidity”. Being “advanced stupid” describes people who get so fixated on trying to optimize something complicated that they forget to optimize for survival. For such an oversight, they then get knocked out of the game. (Browse examples of such stupidity here.)
Being aware of what I am presupposing — even if the current topic under discussion is several levels “more shallow” compared to the foundational belief — keeps me sane (rather important, at least to me) and allows me to trace my thoughts backwards with some clarity when I come across something surprising or unexpected along my thinking along the “more shallow” levels.
Maybe all of this is just in my head, and maybe most people are not even conscious of such things as they talk. Perhaps it would have been better if I had kept that “assuming there is a God” bit to myself and not have derailed that particular conversation in this way — but then, if I had not brought it up, this post would not exist, I would not experience this present satisfaction of having written out such thoughts with a pretence at coherency, and — what is more — I would have gone on from that conversation with fuzzier ideas of beliefs and presuppositions than the ones I have earned by now.
For this (and far more) I am glad I assume a God exists when I deliberate over “stuff.” 🙂