Information and the Teleological Argument

Before I moved on to the Moral Argument for God's Existence, I was doing a little more reading and thinking about the Teleological Argument. Basically, the teleological argument says, we see design therefore there's a Designer. Nevertheless, how do we know we see design? What feature of a "machine" implies design? How does the blueprint for that machine play a part in these observations? Moreover, how does the concept of God connect with these “blueprints”?

Well, the simple answer is that "machines" have information associated with them. They are conceived immaterially and are birthed physically through a blueprint or plan that is expressed through some sort of language or code. Information is this code.

In English, the word information means to “give form” to something. It is not the thing ultimately formed, nor is it the medium that conveys formation. Information is the immaterial meaning that eventually has expression in the sensible world.

One researcher, Andrzej Chmielecki, claims that information really is just the ability to discriminate:

The fundamental feature of animate systems (which are all informational systems) is their ability to discriminate and select. From single cells to plants to animals and human beings the behavior of animate systems depends on what they can discriminate, be it the concentration of certain substances, or the magnitude of physical parameters like temperature, humidity, or shape. What counts here is thus some detected difference between things that can be distinguished by a system. "Difference" and "detection" are thus two key words in our enterprise of grasping what information is. Information is, roughly speaking, any detected difference . . . . .

And later:

Information is an abstract entity. It has no separate existence on its own, because no difference can exist save there are real states of affairs between which the difference holds, and which constitute its code.

I think this makes sense because the physical “blueprint” we usually call information (but isn’t), only comes about through an immaterial process (especially when we are looking at higher concepts such as art, love, morality, spirituality, ect.).

According to another researcher, Werner Gitt,* information equals the sum of the following:

• Statistics: the number and kind of symbols used in the code.
• Syntax: the permissible combination of symbols; the structural characteristics of the code.
• Semantics: the sequential rules for the code which carries the actual meaning of the message.
• Pragmatics: the sender's invitation to action; the intention of the sender.
• Apobetics: the results, the consequences and outcome of the reception; the receiver's action predicated on the sender's intention.

Thus, information is a code made up of "freely willed" conventions and arbitrarily defined symbols designed to discriminate between states. There is no information without a code, and no code without an intelligent sender. Even if no "author" is physically present, you can still know that there was an author. It requires a material medium for storage and transmission but can only be generated from non-material sources--souls, consciousnesses, wills.# It cannot be generated from a material entities and, according to Gitt, is the basis for all program-directed technological and biological systems.

But how do we know that information is non-material? Gitt attempts to demonstrate this by imagining a sandy beach. On this beach, we take a stick and write out a meaningful English sentence. Then, we smooth it over with our foot and write another. The material in which the information was temporarily stored had not really changed. The sand's mass and energy had not changed; it's configuration changed, not it's material. The meaning in the code transcends (if I can use that word) the sum total of all of the silica, quartz and other materials found in the sand and is expressed in the arbitrarily-, but intelligently-, constructed code we call English. The meaningful English sentences, obviously intelligently designed and evolving (not to put too fine a point on it), is the insubstantial code. It is the active force that motivates structure, cohesion, discrimination and perception in the physical world. While it has no form in itself, it must reside in some kind media. Unfortunately, due to metonymic conventions, it is sometimes difficult to separate the media (the blueprint, speech, book, DNA) from the information it holds. For example, sounds (and their accompanying information, speech, music) are not stored on an MP3 file, rather they are merely causally connected to the 1’s and 0’s on the magnetic disk. In much the same, information is not on the medium.

Is it true that the material world cannot explain the non-material? Obviously, I'm not going to be able to elaborate on my belief that non-material entities exist here (for starters, I think that Kant's noumenal world, among other things, is generally correct), so for now I will just assume immaterial entities exist for sake of argument and try to elaborate on that at a later time. If non-material entities--such as minds, ideas, consciousness, spirits, God--exist, then we can should be able to see how they produce tangible results in the physical world. We have a thought (which, I argue, may have material components, but it is essentially immaterial) that is transferred into language, then becomes an impulse to do something. As this impulse is transferred, either through speech or action or set in some physical medium for future use, it now becomes able to form something in the physical world. If information is non-material and has a non-material origin, yet can be expressed in the material world (our English sentences written in the sand, for example), then it seems plausible that the ultimate creator of this code (God) exists.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly what the book of Genesis suggests that God did, through some kind of information stream (apparently, speech), when He created the world. In the New Testament, Jesus is identifies as the Word (logos, both speech and action). This is, perhaps, an apt description of what information is: arbitrary symbols that are designed to express, motivate or otherwise create or cause action in the material world. While I don’t believe Jesus was purely information (that seems rather absurd), it is clear from the Bible that before there was a material world, there was some sort of code in preparation for everything substantial. The author of this code is God.

For pantheists, this makes a lot of sense. God is, for them perhaps, the insubstantial code behind everything we see in the universe. From my point of view, this does not go far enough though because information is only an expression of the author’s intent. Therefore, there must be an author beyond, before and superior to the information itself; artificers are not the same as the artifact.

I’m not entirely sure that this line of argumentation is completely persuasive. I’ll have to give this some more thought, but information does, for myself, seem to play an important role in how I can properly apprehend the existence of God.

-----------

* I first encountered Gitt's work at Answers in Genesis. AiG presents a lot ideas that are, frankly, interesting and supportive of my views in general, but also present some hastily constructed arguments that, to me, seem far fetched and not terribly defensible. Gitt, while controversial, raises some interesting points. I have ignored his major arguments about the validity of evolutionary theories, which--in all honesty--I don't completely understand yet and concentrated on his proofs for God's existence.

#Of course, animals and plants may produce information. It is probably a quantitative rather than qualitative difference between the information created by non-material entities (human souls, God) and reflexive, responsive information created by plants and animals; animals posses souls (nefesh) but human beings posses living souls (nefesh khaya) in the image of our Creator. Leave it to my cat-loving wife to destroy my carefully constructed argument; no wonder I'm so conflicted! hehe

Knowledge, a Definition

Epistemology is the study of how we know but it occurred to me that I may not even know what knowledge is. What does it mean to “know” something? How can I tell if I “know” that God exists?
According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge), the most useful definition of “knowledge” is:

2 a (1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned (a person of unusual knowledge>

In order to know that God exists then, it must be through personal experience, familiar acquaintance. I must be consciously aware of this knowledge and I must understand it.

As I've said before, epistemology is not my favorite subject. It always seemed to me that the major camps of epistemology are arrayed against each other like the old Nature v. Nurture camps. It's rather obvious to me that both play a major part in human development, and, thus epistemological subjectivism, rationalism, empiricism and faith all play a role in how we know anything. According to this definition, I may be required to use many different tools to know anything.

All of these tools have their weaknesses as well. Subjectivism fails because it cannot tell us anything about what exists outside of ourselves. Prepositional knowledge fails because it start from the general and makes assumptions about the specific and scientific knowledge fails because it starts from the specific and makes assumptions about the general. Faith fails because it attempts to know things that may have a variety of alternative and yet unknown explanations.

But all four have their own strengths. If we don't have a point of view (subjectivism) then we don't have any right to say that I know anything. If we don't think about why we know something (rationalism) or if there is nothing tangible (empiricism) to intuit, then there is no warrant to believe that we can know anything. Yet, there are things we cannot know for sure and we must make a leap of faith in order to accept. I wasn't at the Apollo moon landing in 1969 (I can barely remember 1969!) but it's reasonable to believe that it happened and I can actually touch some of the artifacts from the mission. That said, I cannot be 100% certain that it happened so some portion of my acceptance of the moon landing must be done on faith. All four theories seem to be necessary for a grounded view of knowledge.

According to the “standard definition of knowledge”, knowledge must contain the following three elements. I tend to agree with Plato by saying that knowledge must be "justified true belief". I only really know something if it is true, I believe it's true and can justify my belief in the truth of the matter. I cannot know untrue things, but I am free to believe all sorts of things that may not be true. There may be some true things I will never believed, so I do not know them. I can also believe untrue things; again, this is not knowledge. Thus what is known must be true by necessity and I must believe it is true.

As I said, one is free to believe all sorts of things, but we all know that there are many people who believe some pretty strange and obviously false things. Thus, belief alone is insufficient to knowledge. On the other hand, we can believe in something that is true, yet this is still insufficient. The belief must be warranted or justified. If I happened to believe that I have $1.35 in change in my pocket and there just by mere chance happen to be 4 quarters, a dime, 4 nickels and 5 pennies in my pocket and by pure chance there actually was $1.35 in my pocket, would I know it? The answer, of course, is no. I only guessed correctly and so the final element of knowledge is justification. My belief must be warranted somehow. In this case, I can reach into my pocket and count the change. In other cases, I may need to construct an array of evidence both logical and evidentiary.

So, on this view, that in order to know something, it must be true (some form of empiricism), it must be justifiable (rationalism) and I must believe in it (some form of faith). If I rely on any one theory to come to a conclusion, especially about the existence of God, I’m afraid this project will be hopeless. I think that’s why a lot of people fail in their attempt to prove God’s existence. Faith in God seems the most likely candidate for starters, but faith alone doesn’t seem to be sufficient to produce real, sustainable knowledge. For myself, I’m sure faith will continue to play a part in my relationship with God, but it cannot be the only way to know God.

Basics of Epistemology

In order to come to any conclusion about whether God exists, we have to examine how we might know that He (she or it) exists. Are we certain of God's existence? Or is there just a probability? How can our finite minds apprehend the concept of the infinite? How do we justify our claims to know anything?

These are the problems of epistemology. The defining questions of epistemology include the following:

1. What is the nature of propositional knowledge, knowledge that a particular proposition about the world is true? Knowing a particular proposition requires both that we believe it and that it be true, but it also clearly requires something more, something that distinguishes knowledge from a lucky guess. Let's call this additional element ‘warrant’. A good deal of philosophical work has been invested in trying to determine the nature of this additional element.
2. How can we gain knowledge? We can form true beliefs just by making some lucky guesses. How we can gain warranted beliefs is unclear. Moreover, to know the world, we must think about it, and it is not clear how we gain the concepts we use in thought or what assurance, if any, we have that the ways in which we divide up the world using our concepts correspond to divisions that actually exist.
3. What are the limits of our knowledge? Some aspects of the world may be within the limits of our thought but beyond the limits of our knowledge; faced with competing descriptions of them, we cannot know which description is true. Some aspects of the world may even be beyond the limits of our thought, so that we cannot form intelligible descriptions of them, let alone know that a particular description is true.

The third item, I imagine, will be particularly important while discussing the reality of God.

Out of these questions, five major camps have evolved: Subjectivism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Pragmatism, Faith.

Subjectivism says that there is only one thing anyone can know exists: our mind (rather, and more to the point, my mind, because I have no real basis for knowing you exist). Sometimes called epistemological idealism, this position holds that we can only understand the world through our own unique perspective and that other perspectives may or may not actually exist. Knowledge, therefore, deeply personal and entirely a matter of opinion.

Rationalism is theory that we acquire knowledge through thinking, using our minds. Rationalism relies on necessary, self-evident and universal truths, as well as syllogism (analytic truth and deductive reasoning). In other words, the real world is only knowable because it has a logical structure that can be analyzed and grasped through reason.

Usually opposing Rationalism is Empiricism, the view that we acquire knowledge by testing things out and using our sensory experience. It relies on synthetic truth, direct observation, induction (indirect empirical knowledge, generalization). A theories about the world must be tested against observations of the natural world, as per the scientific method.

Pragmatism is the view that knowledge is not, strictly speaking, out there waiting to be discovered. Rather, it is mutable and must be considered in relation to the consequences of its acceptance or rejection. There must be some conceptual agreement, practically speaking, about a given term. Essentially, if the theory, belief, or "fact" works, then it is true.

Finally, there is Faith (sometimes called Authority or Fideism). Epistemological faith is the belief that we quire knowledge through inspiration and revelation. There are some things we simply cannot know through our own personal perspectives, reason, experimentation or conventions. Reason is fallible and our sense can deceive. So, we must make leaps of faith toward any kind of knowledge. At the very least, we must suspend our skepticism and accept knowledge even though we cannot achieve certainty. Justification may be necessary for knowledge of this sort, but it is entirely insufficient to determine if something is actually true.

In the end, epistemology is as much about levels of certainty as it is about the way we know. Usually this is arranged from most certain or apodictic, to psychological certainty (does it feel certain?), to conventional ("all bachelors are unmarried men"), to pragmatic (is is helpful to be certain?), finally down to probabilities. For example, people can point to mathematical truths that can, supposedly, be proved indubitably. But is "1 + 1 = 2" a mere stipulative tautology? Is there any probability that this kind of knowledge is simply an useful convention? So, the quest becomes one of using whichever theory and then attempting to justify or examine our certainty.

To prove that God exists--to be certain in the way that many Christians appear to be--seems like a very difficult thing to do. But, throughout the history of the Church, subjectivists, empiricists, rationalists, pragmatists and fideists have, with various degrees of certainty, all taken their turns. Each one has used the tools of epistemology to make their case for (or against) the existence of God.

Preference, Priorities and the Committed Churchgoer

Because I believe people get confused and begin to lump healthy discernment or muddle personal preferences in with selfishness (and because I have an unhealthy attraction to definitions in general!), I think it best to begin by defining “consumer Christianity”. According to the Berean Call, Consumer Christianity is, generally,

any attempt to build the kingdom of God or build up the individual Christian (or attract the potential convert to Christianity) by means and methods that appeal to the flesh, i.e., the deceitful and self-serving heart of man.

When we use business and Hollywood strategies to bring us closer to God, we are leaning on our own power. We attempt to make the world’s ways, God’s ways. This is where Church leadership over the past decade or two is at fault. In an honest attempt to feed their flocks, they set into motion a cycle of dependency and, instead of helping Christians to grow, end up making them short-sighted and weak.

We shop for churches, pastors, the slickest presentations, the newest fads in worship music and universal get-God-quick programs (what I call "Top Ten Christianity"). Consumer Christianity turns honest, God-seeking Christians into McChristians. The Church tries to offer what McDonalds does:

• Lot's of menu choices designed to please our appetites and personal tastes. Give the people what they want.
• Hold down the price of commitment in time and money.
• The tendency to avoid intimacy. That's why many people love the mega-church environment where they can be anonymous consumers. You never have to get to know anyone!

The Church is dying of its addiction to spiritual fast food. Indeed, as historian Thomas C. Reeves says

Christianity in modern America . . . tends to be easy, upbeat, convenient, and compatible. It does not require self-sacrifice, discipline, humility, an otherworldly outlook, a zeal for souls, a fear as well as love of God. There is little guilt and no punishment, and the payoff in heaven is virtually certain. What we now have might best be labeled 'Consumer Christianity.' The cost is low and customer satisfaction seems guaranteed."

So, as you can see, by this definition Consumer Christianity is not what Jesus had in mind for His Church, for, if “anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it" (Luke 9:23-24, Matthew 16:24-26).

But can someone seek to maximize his or her well-being, edification or, even, comfort in church without being a Consumer Christian? Is it, essentially, ungodly to enjoy, even look forward to, the blessings of God that flow from a personally helpful sermon, a familiar song, or a favorite program? Is it wrong to seek fulfillment, renewal, and personal growth in church? Can we continue to offer various alternatives and choices in church, yet continually disparage the very act of choosing? Are we required to endure an intolerable church experience, just to avoid being labeled “consumer Christians”?

Let’s be clear here, I am not suggesting that our church experience should merely be judged on a value basis. Church life is not monadic, it is communal, it is spiritual, it is for others. A mature churchgoer will recognize this. A mature and committed Christian will recognize that being equipped, renewed and revived is also an important part of going to church.

Here lies the balancing act between our personal preferences and our biblical priorities. Our preferences are just that, preferences; it's the way we like things. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with wanting things to be one way or another. It just means that we prefer what we prefer, in an aesthetic sense. We all prefer a certain way of worshipping God and serving others. And, under those circumstances, we may just fulfil our God-given purposes at an optimal level.

The committed churchgoer is just that: committed. He or she is committed to growing in Jesus and finding ways to serve others. The committed Christian is also committed to looking into themselves with the aid of the Holy Spirit to discern what things in our church life that are just preferences (the way we like it) and those things that a biblical priorities worth speaking up for.

One final point to keep in mind: if a person leaves a church please don't simply write them off as "Consumer Christians". It may well be that they are, but, on the other hand, God may be using a certain situation in their church life to compel them to move on to other opportunities for growth and ministry. We are all made very differently; we are all on our own separate journeys.

Doubt

Doubt:

1. To question or hold questionable; to withhold assent to; to hesitate to believe, or to be inclined not to believe; to withhold confidence from; to distrust; as, I have heard the story, but I doubt the truth of it....
2. To suspect; to fear; to be apprehensive of...
3. To fill with fear; to affright.

Particularly, in many religious traditions, doubt is equated with fear. In Christian circles, this can be interpreted as a lack or, even, opposition to faith. This can mean an abiding mistrust in the power of God to be present in our lives. It is the fear that, perhaps, God does not have our best interest at heart or, even if He does, He lacks the power to protect and guide us. Thus doubt may develop into a form of backsliding for the "committed" Christian.

While, I would not dispute the fact that an abiding doubt in God's faithfulness probably will lead to an unhealthy form of Christianity (or agnosticism or, perhaps even, atheism), doubt in and of itself is not a bad thing. Doubt, in the first sense, is an essential part of any honest approach to religious experience and spiritual awareness.

Doubt, in the first sense, causes us to contemplate, strive for understanding and even test the religious claims of our fellow sojourners and leaders. This form of doubt forces us to evaluate programs and movements in light of reason, faith and a commitment to truth. Forcing us to apply concepts and commands only after "owning" them for ourselves. Because I believe our Christian walk is, ultimately, a solo affair (in the sense that God doesn't judge us for the thoughts and actions of our community, only on our own choices in the context of our community), God expects us to be responsible for what we allow to enter our hearts and our minds. Doubt, as a sort of prudent skepticism, is the first line of defense against unhealthy ideas.

Doubt, in the sense of fear and suspicion, can only be harmful. This form of doubt is so often purely irrational and may stem from a variety of unhealthy and selfish impulses. This is where the first form of doubt may be useful (i.e. in helping to evaluate what can turn out to be unwise thoughts or courses of action).

In the second and third sense of the word doubt, we see the same power that faith has used in harmful ways. On that view, faith and doubt are both the attempt to convince ourselves of a certain outcome. Faith is the hope in something good; doubt the hope in something bad.

Forgiveness

I just came across this wonderful article on forgiveness over at the Good Samaritan Ministries blog, and it really got me thinking. I am currently working through some forgiveness issues of my own and I need to remind myself exactly what Jesus taught about the subject.

According to the current Wikipedia:

Forgiveness is the mental, and/or spiritual process of ceasing to feel resentment, indignation or anger against another person for a perceived offence, difference or mistake, or ceasing to demand punishment or restitution. This definition, however, is subject to much philosophical critique. Forgiveness may be considered simply in terms of the person who forgives, in terms of the person forgiven and/or in terms of the relationship between the forgiver and the person forgiven. In some contexts, it may be granted without any expectation of compensation, and without any response on the part of the offender (for example, one may forgive a person who is dead). In practical terms, it may be necessary for the offender to offer some form of acknowledgment, apology, and/or restitution, or even just ask for forgiveness, in order for the wronged person to believe they are able to forgive.

In a Christian context, forgiveness is a prayerful action in which we allow God to handle the situation. Forgiveness should not simply crossing people off our list of perceived offenders. "It is a choice, it is specific, and," the authors of the article insist, "it is emotional."

I'm not entirely sure I believe forgiveness should be emotional, at least as far as I understand the author. Because forgiveness is a choice, it really can't be emotional. Emotions flow, not from our perceptions but, from our rational understanding of the world. Emotions are the bodily response to situations and our philosophical "rules" devised to deal with those situations.

So, in a sense, the author is correct. If we have decided that "I" am not going to hold something against another person, then we can say that our forgiveness is emotional. I can now feel positively towards a person who is no longer offensive to me. He or she has offended God and God is the one who gets to decide what to do about it.

The trick is that we can't really forget the perceived wrong to us. God may be able to do so, perhaps, but we can not. This is where the rubber hits the road. How does one deal with a person who continually wrongs you, shows no remorse and, apparently, plans on doing it again? If we "protect" ourselves by putting up boundries, are we interfering with the forgiveness process? Are we somehow telling God that we can handle the situation?

For a Christian, forgiveness may be the highest form of worship because we do not presume to act on behalf of God. In the end, forgiveness is just another cross we must bear in order to truly be called children of God.

"Nonsense"

Before I actually begin to tackle Spong's Thesis, I must address the word "nonsense". Nonsense, as defined by Dictionary.com:

1. Words or signs having no intelligible meaning: a message that was nonsense until decoded.
   
2. Subject matter, behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd.
   
3. Extravagant foolishness or frivolity: a clown's exuberant nonsense.
   
4. Matter of little or no importance or usefulness: a chatty letter full of gossip and nonsense.
   
5. Insolent talk or behavior; impudence: wouldn't take any nonsense from the children.

Merriam-Webster defines "nonsense" as:

1 a words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1) : language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense (2) : an instance of absurd action
2 a : things of no importance or value : TRIFLES b : affected or impudent conduct

In Spong's mind, traditional Christian ideas are not even worthy of discussion because they are either unintelligible (he literally can't understand the meanings of these ideas) or are actually valueless (as in the content of the word "incarnation", "creation" and "fall" lack appreciable correspondence to anything real).

"Nonsense" for Spong is anything encumbered by meaningless code words. For example, he might read The Apostle's Creed this way:

I believe in God, the 7371 89746422,
the Creator of 41112366 and earth,
and in Jesus 33896, 131456662 only 431, our 3131677

Where the numbers represent a correspondence to some long-dead code, which has no hope of being deciphered. Furthermore, if anyone claims to understand this code, they must be mistaken, because it, indeed, is indecipherable. What Spong appears to be saying is "I personally don't get it so it must be false."

Some notes on Sin

Thomas Aquinas writes:

. . . sin is broadly used to mean any failure of activity, natural or designed, to reach its goal . . . . But the meaning of sin proper to morals is of cuplable failure of will to reach a due goal because it is drawn toward an unsuitable one.

Essentially, sin is "missing the mark", failing to measure up to a proper standard. The "mark", in this case, is God's Law. Biblically speaking, "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4, NIV) or in the King James, "for sin is the transgression of the law."

So, our duty to God is live our lives in such as way as to avoid clashing with His will. Put positively: Our best interest is served when we are in line His Law. Life should be lived in such a way as to avoid sin, to "hit the mark" as it were. The trick of it is, of course, learning what the mark is. I like how John Wesley's mother explained it (Letter, June 8, 1725):

Take this rule: whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes off your relish of spiritual things; in short, whatever increases the strength and authority of your body over your mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may be in itself.

For a more in depth look at a biblical view of sin, check out "What is Sin?" by Tony Warren.

Tolerance

I've been thinking more and more about this subject, and what my response to it should be. What does it mean to be "tolerant"? Does it mean accepting anything and everything that is presented to us, just because someone else holds it near and dear?

First, I need a good, common definition of what it means to be tolerant, and, after peeking around the Internet, I think that UNESCO's take on the subject seems to be rather typical and "authoritative". I'll be analyzing the four points of the "meaning" section of it's Declaration of Principles on Tolerance.

1.1 Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.

I believe it is imperative to understanding, not only one another but, life itself that we remain open-minded (more on that subject for another post) about other peoples of the world. We cannot pre-judge and we cannot assume our ways are indeed the best or even better than another's. It's clear to me that being different is not necessarily a bad thing and can almost always be a good thing. "Harmony in difference" is a great principle. Tolerance does, indeed, make peace possible. There are some controversial issues though in this paragraph that makes gives me pause that what is commonly called "tolerance" truly is tolerant.

1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

The values of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms for all should not be infringed; that seems reasonable as well. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this one. Again, it all sounds quite good on paper. Putting up with other people's foibles and idiosyncrasies is not the same as accepting them as true.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

"Pluralism"? Rejection of "dogmatism" and "absolutism"? Here's the meat of it. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by these terms, especially considering the context. What if a culture is based on "dogmatism" and "absolutism"? How does one resolve the problem of conflicting values? My best take on this is to say that we shouldn't shove our own ideas down the throats of others. Fine and good. No one should be subjected to such things. But if I am to understand this to mean that we cannot have opinions that we feel are correct, even if it means others are wrong, then I find this intolerable (in a medical sense) at best and laughable at worst.

1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others.

Unless you are being "dogmatic" or absolutist, right? How do we determine "social injustice" if we are to be tolerant of other's ideas and actions? What if "to be as they are" is actually a bad way of living?

A distinction must be made here: there may be a difference between tolerating other's cultural and physical idocycracies (style of clothing, speech, skin color, etc.) and tolerating different ideas. For the most part, if I read it right, UNESCO's focus is on cultural and biological diversity. It seeks to give some breathing space between the experience of something different and any judgments about those differences.

The word "tolerance" doesn't seem to be the right word for what it commonly describes. Tolerance is a medical term. It is a decreased responsiveness to negative stimuli. It is the capacity to endure the effects of poison, viruses, mosquitoes or drug side effects. In short, it's the ability to put up with something that is abrasive, annoying, invasive or plain wrong, something that does not agree with you. It has nothing to do with being open-minded to the wonderful possibilities of something strange or even offensive. Thus, under this more reasonable definition, one cannot tolerate something that is already acceptable; one can only tolerate those things that are annoying, hazardous, painful, unacceptable or wrong.

On the other hand, I think it is a Christian duty to accept diversity in thought and action. It's clear to me--especially being married for fourteen years now--that playing to my strengths will not always be the best way of doing things. I have a responsibility as a Christian to love and accept all people, no matter how unlovable or strange they may seem, yet I have not obligation to accept any idea or point of view that strolls down the pike. In other words, as the folks over at The Rebelution blog point out, the most reasonable Christian position "dicates that one tolerate persons, not their ideas." Having opinions about other peoples' beliefs does not constitute imposing ourselves on them, rather it is a process of proposing alternatives in a compassionate manner.

It's my opinion that the common idea of tolerance may actually hinder the process of discovering truth. If I have to "tolerate" anything anyone thinks or says the way UNESCO appears to want, there may be times when I simply must be quiet (un-dogmatic?) about an issue. It does no one any good to assume that all ideas are of equal value.

P. C. Language

I get such a kick out of how people use language and react to certain terms. I do not believe that "post traumatic stress disorder" is a better way of describing Shell Shock. I do not have "homophobia." (While I freely admit, I can be misanthropic from time to time, I have never been nor can I imagine a time when I might be afraid of the genus to which my species belongs.) And a "refugee" has no racial connotation.

Not so says the Rev. Jesse Jackson: "It is racist to call American citizens refugees," he said while visiting the Houston Astrodome on Monday. I suppose you could make a technical, legal argument against using the word "refugee" in the case of Katrina's victims. These people are not changing their citizenship status and, I'm guessing, most intend to return to their homes in the near future. It irks me though to think that a pretty good description of "people fleeing their homes in search of safety" is suddenly racist because the people in question just happen to be predominately black . . . ermm African-American.