We need contrasts to help us clarify and unify. Every hero needs an enemy. Every organization needs to strive against the status quo (or at least what threatens their status quo). Parents worry about children who don’t follow the rules, and/or that a child is too much of a rule-follower.
Part of how we define what we are for is to define what are you opposed to. My working list:
A purely mechanistic view of the universe and everything in it. A worldview which says everything and everyone is just particles and information will consistently fail to explain our collective human experiences. Life has agency. Life is an anti-entropy entity that defies thermodynamics. Our breakthrough understanding of quantum mechanics means there is an unsettling weirdness underlying the predictable attributes of bodies at rest and in motion. For those who insist there is nothing divine or spiritual, only mechanisms we don’t yet understand, I ask for the historical examples of a thriving and peaceful civilization that denied the divine. We observe that a religious majority can readily accommodate a minority viewpoint, whereas historical examples of state-sponsored atheism cannot tolerate religious views. (Note: See the link for Stuart Kauffman’s new paper below)
“Everything is relative, and there is no absolute truth, only your truth and my truth.” We’re deeply flawed and inadequate to understand the full picture. We twist ourselves into odd knots when “your truth” and “my truth” are incompatible. There are foundation truths which support our ability to thrive together. The follow-through of ‘everything is relative’ has always led to far more problems than it “solved,” and only provided short-term convenient benefits at a terrible price.
Emphasizing “the state collective” over the individual. There’s a spectrum here. The phrase “one another” occurs 138 times in the New Testament. We are meant to be in healthy communities that love, serve, protect, and encourage one another. I’m opposed to a collectivist view of a political state because every historical example becomes willing to murder people for “the greater good.” Most people find it easier to fear all-out nuclear war than all-out state control. I prefer the challenges that come in the tension between individual rights and body politic. The flip side of the coin is being opposed to “every individual must always get their way,” because that’s also a path to destroy families and communities.
Censorship of competing ideas rather than engaging in uncomfortable dialogue. Fears drive censorship; we should not be afraid to work through competing ideas. Nor should we allow people who prefer monologues over potential learning to control the agenda.
A fixed-term education mindset. Far too many people think of education as something that finishes at X point (e.g., High School, College) and then… you get on with life. The processes of learning and maturing are life long and joyous. Every day presents learning opportunities.
Indoctrination. The test to differentiate indoctrination and education is whether the student is permitted to go beyond the teacher after a reaching a basic level of mastery. Indoctrination cannot tolerate this; education expects it. We all need to be instructed to develop functional competence as a foundation for creatively expanding. We all need feedback and reinforcement, but even this can be accomplished without indoctrination. Some fields (e.g., math) have correct and wrong answers.
Social environments where forgiveness and redemption aren’t possible. Soul-crushing intolerance of an ‘error’ does not allow people to learn and mature. Dinged relationships cannot be restored and strengthened. Fear becomes the primary driver.
Making Science an idol. (I write this as a trained Ph.D. scientist, folks.) The scientific method is an powerful approach to discovery in domains where you can make measurements and control some variables. You make a hypothesis, design experiments which could disprove your hypothesis, and interpret the data you can collect. There are major portions of things we care about where the scientific method cannot, by definition, give us answers. There is no such thing as “The Science™” because current understanding is always subject to new information and new technical capabilities. DaVinci, Galileo, Newton, Jenner, Franklin, Pasteur, Curie, Maxwell, Einstein, and McClintock all updated “The Science” of their time. Scientists, even the best, can incorrectly interpret data and draw wrong conclusions. Respect scientific views but never worship them. Be particularly wary of mixing market forces with science.
I’m likewise opposed to turning away from science. Science and technology have been, and will be, the keys to growth and modernity. We must be wise in the ways we use them as tools.
Unequal application of the law and its consequences. Or, not enforcing the consequences of the rule of law because someone thinks it shouldn’t apply. Justice operates from constraints and consistency. “Rules for thee but not for me” has led to some of the worst of the history of our species.
Tolerating lies. Lies are the foundation of evil, and the path of least resistance to broken relationships, eroded trust, and wholesome justice. We casually say, “Of course politicians lie, it’s practically their job description” – and we shouldn’t. Reminder to self: You get what you consistently tolerate, not what you expect.
Prayerlessness. I advocate almost daily for more self-leadership and personal responsibility. Yet this must be in the humility and recognition that we all kneel before God and are desperate for His sustaining love and guidance. We weren’t designed to do this on our own.
What’s on your list? Anything you’d add or disagree with?
