insufficient evidence

Dr, Gary, Davis, Needinc, Clueless, Christianity, Christian, beliefs, evidence, values, known, Let’s start by considering the opposite of insufficient evidence—namely, sufficient evidence. The question put to us is simple, “Would there be sufficient evidence to convict you of what you say you believe?” or, “What repercussions do your values have for the way you live?”

Certainly, Navy Seals can boast ample evidence that their actions bespeak of a deep belief in “God & country.”  (Their motto is Ready to lead…, ready to follow. Never quit.) People of deep religious faith generally could be convicted for their faith; there should be sufficient evidence. (If there is not…, well.) There is probably a Gallup survey that asks “To what extent do you follow through on your commitments?”

Yet in our Western, postChristian, pluralistic world there seems to be more of an inclination toward tentative commitments and cautious relationships. The fear of being known has regained unusual ground in a culture longing for safety. There has also been a rise in the fear of being wrong, or making the wrong choice or decision. Therefore, many of us never fully commit to anything. We have prenuptial agreements, escape clauses, termination parachutes, etc. We are a people who do not like to be pinned down or labeled; Christian, Republican, Conservative/Liberal, even male/female.

Part of the reason for our hesitation-to-commit is our fear of being hurt. It is our fear of being rejected from “the group,” or our insecurity stemming from our own historical observations that commitments are simply inconsequential. So why make them? We have fed this innate fear that, if we make a mistake we need to cover ourselves; we need to provide an escape route that will free us from the whole mess, the marriage, the contract, the bond. We fear being hurt so much that we don’t fully give ourselves to anything, or anyone, anymore. We always need to protect ourselves— a way OUT.

Therefore, we can never be pinned down on what we hold dear, what we value, or what we believe:  it’s just safer for us that way. Or is it?

Without sufficient evidence to hold us to any belief system or set of values we may have escaped the wrath of some other group. We may have avoided another deep heartache. But we have also demolished our own core. We have morphed its solidity for mush, its certainty for wishy-washy equivocation, which is about as inspiring as tan wallpaper.

If our leaders, and ourselves, do not hold positional beliefs and values strong and clear enough to convict us then who have we become? Insufficient evidenceis the descriptor of weaker men who do not want to be held accountable for their actions.

Let’s stand up and be counted—  even if it costs us our lives.

‘Nough said,

  Gary

Advertisements

Thimk

Yes, the title of this article is intentionally misspelled. Why? Because it forced you to think about it; to wonder if the writer knows how to use Spell Check, or to conclude he is just stupid or lazy.

One of the easily observable facts of our time is that the average American finds thinking too tedious. The most difficult question we often face is— Large or small fries with that? Part of this situation is due to our 8th grade reading level being supplanted by sound-bytes on television. Thinking about issues is just too much work; just observe and absorb.

Thus do we leave thinking to the experts— science says, logically speaking, whatever the pastor says, leave it to the government to figure it out (well, except maybe during this present shutdown, or the next one), trust your doctor. Really?!? Have we actually entered a time when trusting the specialist, the expert, precludes our entrance into the conversation!?!

Our passive compliance to leave the thinking to others yields a dangerous dilemma. First, we tend to leave the resolution of complex issues in the hands of our elected officials, the scholars, the MDs & PhDs, or the religious elite of our era. Secondly, over time, we actually lose our ability to think. We simply listen and numbly respond, “Well, that sounds OK. Right?” and we never consider the other side of the debate.

This becomes distinctly evident in a person’s search for life-meaning, or life philosophy. Or should I say, the lack thereof. Considering the possibility of meaning, a meta-narrative, a life-purpose, has become, yes, too much work. Leave the difficult questions to the elite, the intellectuals, the government (well… ).

One of the primary reasons people do not want to consider Christianity is that it is just too much work. They are not against the Christian faith; it just seems superfluous to think about it, or any belief system, for that matter. In the grand scheme of things, I’m fine!

When we cease pondering the deeper questions of life, we will become a nation of neurological numb-nuts, blindly accepting whatever truth is handed down to us by the intellectual aristocracy as Truth. Investigation of Truth will be lost to the few who decide for us what it is. Brilliant!

[Note: To the genuinely Christian among us— get your brains in gear.]

For what it’s worth,

Gary