a "Radical Nationalist Anti-Imperialist Anti-Collectivist Distributivist Christian Social Democrat" A 15 year old girl, for reasons I still don't understand, asked me about my position on evolution. We were resting in the shade of a rock while on a wilderness hike under sunny skies, so this was (excuse the pun) something out of the blue. After our conversation a close friend said he was surprised at my answer, even shocked. It seems that three decades of relationship had been selectively filtered to build an invalid presumption. This makes me wonder (a) what presumptions those closest to me are making about who I am, and (b) what presumptions I am making about them. And of course, in writing this I am both presuming and assuming you know the difference between an assumption and presumption. At our peril we make assumptions (drawing conclusions on little to no evidence). Yet how often do you and I assume from the general tone of a conversation that a specific individual is in agreement. I've been bitten by this twice recently; once when the topic was Donald Trump (surely everyone thinks he's a disaster?), and once when discussing white privilege (surely everyone recognizes that in general whites benefit from privilege?). But of course, until an individual has spoken on the issue, I am making an assumption which is quite possibly wrong. For example: I say I'm a Christian and some assume I'm a fundamental right-wing bigot. And then there are presumptions, which being based on at least some measure of evidence draw what is hopefully a correct conclusion. Yet these are as likely to mislead if we interpret the evidence incorrectly. For example, my friend of many years presumed that because I liked to talk about Christianity, that I was antagonistic to evolution. He presumed on the basis of a selective interpretation of evidence. If he had factored in that I was a scientist, and that intellectual honesty is extremely important to me, he might have realized that I necessarily agreed with the principles of evolution and that we live on a 4.5 billion old earth. My being a Christian only reinforces the sense of being true to the evidence (although I do draw a distinction between biological evolution and the evolution of the human spirit, which is altogether another conversation, and assumes of course that you even believe in such a thing as the human spirit). So what should do we do? Challenge our assumptions, and interrogate our presumptions, lest we fall into that place where we injure others through our arrogance. And me? Who do you assume/presume I am? I venture that even those closest to me have yet to fully understand the machinations of my mind. How sad is it that in today's world, to say I'm a Christian almost inevitable leads to misunderstanding, all because we fail to expend the effort to challenge our assumptions and interrogate our presumptions. As a clue to who I am, I'll quote Chesterton, who called himself a "Radical Nationalist Anti-Imperialist Anti-Collectivist Distributivist Christian Social Democrat". That about covers it. Afterthought: Here's one wonderful false assumption that so much of the world so often fails to see - Chesterton again.
All the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumption. It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. This is a fallacy even in relation to known fact. For the variation in human affairs is generally brought into them, not by life, but by death; by the dying down or breaking off of their strength or desire. To put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life. The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical encore.
0 Comments
|
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|