What Is the Strategy?

Is meaning objective? It sure seems like it is when I'm ordering a meal, or a little late reacting to a traffic signal. True Meaning really is objective. Even so, we live in an age of language-libertarianism. Today, words are being divorced from the propositions that carry their meaning. It has become popular to ignore objectivity so that words can be overhauled to suit any individual's subjective cultural or religious tastes. The unfortunate result of this trend is a dawning era of rampant confusion.

To combat this confusion, our strategy is to use simple language that's easy to understand, even when discussing really complicated topics. The use of high-brow academic talk, and cringy religious jargons (like "Christianese") are avoided in favor of an accessible and sharable conversation. 

Communication is a two way street though. If you need to look at a dictionary or other reference source from time to time, that's a good thing. Don't be satisfied with your vocabulary or presumed mastery of a topic. And please don't guess. Be willing to learn and to participate in your own learning. Of course, you'll reap what you sow. Everything here is introductory in nature, so if something sparks your interest, please check it out further. I've tried to be as clear and concise as possible to delimit any creative interpretations, but an honest reading is your responsibility.

Communication means sharing meaning together. In order to share meaning, it cannot be subjective. It has to be objective. The meaning of all underlined terms is considered especially important. Ask yourself where the meaning within these words really comes from. Don't take meaning for granted and beg the question. Finding Meaning's Ultimate Source is our project here.

How do you know what you know? Just as important, how do you know what you don't know? It depends on your background, education, and chosen interests. 

Do you work in the hard-sciences? If so, you recognize the value of asking a question, forming a hypothesis, collecting and recording data, analyzing your statistics, and then forming conclusions based on the results. Doing science is how we invented everything from clay jars to jetliners. Science is a powerful tool, but it needs observation and analysis up and running for it to work. Don't observations require an "observer?" Can science tell us where observers come from? No, it can't. As important as science is, it has important limits. Science can't give an explanation of itself.

What about reason? Critical thinking is a really powerful tool as well, but it needs consciousness and discernment up and running for it to work. As important as reason is, it has important limits too. Like science, reason can't give an explanation of itself.

Alright, what about faith—and by faith I mean a persuaded trust in authority? After all, there are so many "authorities" competing for pride of place in our lives. Which of these—if any, are worth trusting?

To show that I am willing to take my own medicine, let's pick on one of my chosen authorities for a moment. If you were to ask me: "Why do you trust the Bible?"

Don't you expect a better answer than: "Because it's the Bible."? 

What should I say when you ask: "What makes the Bible trustworthy?" 

How about: "It's trustworthy because it's God's word."? 

But then you ask: "How do you know it's God's word?" 

Will I persuade you by saying: "Because it's the Bible, and it says that it is."? 

Around and around we'll go—where will we stop? Nobody knows. Trusting authority alone commits us to this vicious maelstrom of circular-reasoning. It's a trap!

On his long journey home to Ithaca after winning the Trojan war, Odysseus carefully steered clear of the monster Charybdis. Why? Because if he hadn't, he risked losing his entire ship and crew down an inescapable whirlpool.

If we are to sail true and make it home, we also must avoid the "Charybdis" of circular-reasoning. This means that we have to expose our assumptions to critical thinking from those who don't share in our particular journey. If we really are on the right track, then we will survive such scrutiny. 

Likewise, we must compare our assumptions to settled scientific discovery. By allowing for this exposure, we risk letting go of certain assumptions that may be dear to us, just like the Roman church did in response to Copernicus' and Galileo's work. This vulnerability might seem scary, but it sure beats risking our whole ship to an inescapable whirlpool of begged questions—especially if we happen to be wrong!

Avoiding the maelstrom of Charybdis cost Odysseus his six best sailors. No serious commitment to reaching the Truth will come without making personal sacrifices along the way. Yours won't be the exception.

Now, I am fully convinced that the Bible is self-authenticating, trustworthy, and authoritative. Others seem just as convinced that the same holds true for radically different "scriptures" with mutually exclusive truth-claims. How are we to objectively assess which authorities are meaningful, and which are confused? Don't we need the voices of reason and science to help us do that? Just like science needs the voices of reason, and the actions of faith to actually accomplish anything.

Notice that you put your faith in the science of pilots and jetliners when you have a reason to travel. Likewise notice that reason needs the voice of science and the actions of faith to become meaningful in the real world. Your wishes never got off the couch and did the dishes because you thought it was a good idea. You have to act on your beliefs in order for them to be meaningful.

Nothing in reality works alone, especially not meaning. The Truth is established on two or three witnesses. So if God Is "The Truth" (John 14:6)—then all truth is His truth no matter where we happen to find it.

It follows that we ought to pursue lives that integrate everything our Maker has revealed to us, and in us. If your beliefs are divorced from reason and science, you won't be able to give a reason for your hope (1 Peter 3:15). Neither will you be able to explain why you are right when others are wrong. Of course, the same holds true if you ignore the limits of science or reason in a futile effort to avoid faith. We all bet our lives and eternities on something.

The responsible-believer must proceed on the conviction that science, reason, and faith aren't meant to co-exist in inevitable discord and tension as they keep to their clearly defined lanes. They are meant to integrate into a three-stranded harmony—a chord that's not easily broken. Reason, science, and faith should unite in a coherent worldview that is worthy of your well-informed trust.

Finally, and most importantly—we choose Love. 

Look at any social media platform, YouTube channel, or website with a comments section (especially the "Christian" ones)—and it won't take long to notice that our discourse with one another has gotten terribly bitter. I acknowledge that the topics treated here are controversial and emotionally sensitive. I also believe that every reader who stumbles across this site is a person of inestimable value and dignity.

Whether you agree with me or not, I think you are made in God's Image and purposed to share in His Perfection. I'm convinced that God loves you just as you are—even if He doesn't want you to remain just as you are. God's love and regard for you certainly entitles you to my own respect and best-wishes. Please know that you have them.

The strategy here is not to judge you. It's simply to find the Truth. Now, if you happen to find it too and notice that you've been living life with your back turned to it—then you're the one on the hook to judge. Work out your own salvation before God. We all must find this courage, and this project is motivated by a genuine desire to help.

Why? That's simple. Because you're my neighbor—and I love you.