two.

Pascal may be right about our passions, emotions and pride hindering the perception of truth. We just recently finished readings/studying Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice in AP English; some of the themes that we came up with were marriage, pride and prejudices, and appearance versus reality. Through her characters, Austen emphasizes the idea that appearances may not mean reality. When we first encounter Mr. Darcy, everyone in the country agrees that he is rude, arrogant and insufferably disagreeable, but as the story continues, we meet people who have known Darcy his entire life and they vouch for his character. Elizabeth Bennet, whom Darcy loves ardently despite the difference of her inferior society, dismisses him as a proud, unendurable man the first time she meets him at the ball. Towards the end of the book, Elizabeth realizes her judgments were completely off-based and incorrect but was completely blind to his sincerity because of her first impression, because of her passions, her bias, and her emotions.

It’s true that we create our own truths but this is only possible because truth is entirely relative. Two cars collide. Which crashed into which first? Who’s fault was it? The by-stander on the right says the blue car hit the red car first, but the by-stander on the left says the red car hit the blue car first. Who’s right? Which of the possibilities are more justified? The answer, really, is that they are equally justified. Certainly, there is only ONE ultimate truth, but unless we ARE God, unless we are omnipotent, we’ll never know what the truth is. So the truth for me, may not be the same for you. God may be true to me, but Allah may be true for you, or maybe you believe that there is no God. We as humans cannot determine the absolute truth and that is why we create our own.

What makes truth: Obviously there are some things that are black or white, yes or no. For example: Little Sammy cheated on a test, he either did or he didn’t right? The teacher saw him; he has exactly the same answers as his classmate, what else could be the truth? Essentially, Little Sammy either did or didn’t cheat on the test, that’s a yes or no situation. But unfortunately, life just doesn’t work that way. How can we justify our “truths” when it comes to more abstract situations then? Evidence. Evidence can come in forms of experience, of text, of social history. I mean, who are you to say that I didn’t experience what I experienced? Who am I to say that the miracles in your life never happened? Okay, so in the end, we’re not going to be able to agree on the absolute truth. We might never find out what the absolute truth is, but as long as we have a valid reason, then our truth is valid… right? Truth is abstract concepts like religion might never be accurate! Maybe they are! But we’ll never know… ah, how much faith is need in determining truth. The chances of us being right about anything are slim, but either way, we have to decide for ourselves what truth is. There’s no use in running, it’s inevitable.

One.

Both Articles that were read in class focused on different aspects of Christianity. Tim Keller believes that "a faith without some doubts is like a human body without antibodies in it." He explains that if a Christian is too "indifferent" to ask themselves questions about what he/she believes than when time comes to face a difficult time in his/her life occurs or when a smart skeptic plagues him/her with frustrating questions, they find themselves defenseless and then too easily yielded to the other side. Doubt, however, is like "an alternate set of beliefs," therefore it would be unfair to only challenge your religion and not your doubts. "The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly," states Keller, "is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then to ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it." I think he says it the best when he says, "It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness, you must doubt your doubts. My thesis is that if you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs-- you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared."

Paul Little talks about the importance of knowing WHY we believe. How can we convince others when we are not convinced ourselves? He brings up two points that we should avoid; the first is an "anti-intellectual attitude" and the second is a naive reliance on our own answers. If we do either, the results could be spiritually tragic for both Christians and non-Christians. Non-Christians conclude from out lack of answers and intellectual apathy that their honest questions have no answers, this only REAFFIRMS their reason to not believe. As Christians, we begin to wonder whether or not we have have the truth. Is what we believe real? Or is it just a convenience?

What both of these have in common though is their encouragement for us to search deeper in our faith, to not tolerate with incompetence. To penetrate our beliefs, to solidify it, we must challenge it. No pain, no gain as they say.

If a an extremely logical, reasonable, and devout Muslim man walks up to me and explains Islam without any inconsistencies, irrationalities, or any ambiguities, I would listen intently and think carefully, whether I would believe him or not is beyond me. I must commend Muslims for the strength of their faith, and for their discipline, but honestly, many concepts about Islam doesn't appeal to me (as in I disagree). The thing about Christianity that stands out to me more than other religions though, is how it abounds in grace and love, and I personally know that if I had to earn my eternity and peace, I would never secceed because I am not worthy of it, whether God is or is not in the question.