“…are all thoughts thus tainted at the source, or only some? Does the taint invalidate the tainted thought-in the sense of making it untrue-or not?”
C.S Lewis
I found C.S Lewis’ writings on how the source of one’s thoughts taints the ideas that follow the source or “lens” through which a person interacts with the world to be pivotal towards understanding the importance of being aware of our own presuppositions.
When Lewis writes on the source of a person’s thoughts, he brings to focus the validation of a person’s thoughts and the importance of evaluating and identifying tainted ideas. The idea that a person’s thoughts may be prematurely biased is a very important point that Lewis makes, however I believe that this idea is part of an even larger dilemma regarding how well we understand others and ourselves. Yes a person’s opinion is influenced by the source of their thoughts, however, instead of simply acknowledging that a person’s ideas may be tainted, -for everybody’s thoughts are influenced by the source of their thoughts and we should not give up on an argument because they are impelled by their sources to think differently from us- we should seek to understand the perspectives and background of the issue in order to work towards a conclusion.
In the context of a discussion between two people in which the aim is to show the other person the accuracy of their judgments, they must keep in mind that their presuppositions directly shape and mold their understanding and responses to reality. In addition they must seek to have an insightful understanding of not only what the presuppositions of the other person are, but also what their personal presuppositions are and how their presuppositions affect their thinking. When the differences of an issue have been analyzed and understood between both parties, a point of identification and acknowledgment, may be found between the two. Through this process, pinpointing where the disagreement lies and why helps both sides to better understand themselves and each other. As presuppositions reveal a person’s core beliefs, values, morals, even strengths and weaknesses, the potential for guiding an argument towards the heart of an issue and reaching a conclusion increases because clearer mutual understanding exists between both sides of the discussion.
An example of where this process would be helpful is in evangelism. An evangelist may go out and preach the power of prayer, Hell, and Heaven to an unbeliever who, after listening to the evangelist, utterly rejects the existence of each of the evangelists’ claims. The evangelist is bewildered, having seen the results and evidences that prove the existence of all three claims and believes that all reality and the world can only exist through the power of a supernatural being who is infinite and eternal. On the contrary, the unbeliever believes that the world and his surroundings are the products of evolution and natural selection. Thus, the explanations of the concepts of prayer, salvation through grace, and Heaven are irrelevant ideas to the unbeliever for he does not believe in the existence of God. In order to explain and prove the legitimacy of the power of prayer, Heaven, and Hell, the evangelist must not begin by providing details relating only to prayer, Heaven and Hell, but of the existence of a supernatural God. Only after the unbeliever acknowledges and believes in the existence of God will the concepts of prayer, Heaven, and Hell begin to become a reality for him.
I like the comment on the fact that an ‘argument is impelled by their sources’ and that we ‘should seek to understand the perspectives and background of the issue in order to work towards a conclusion’. Never forgetting that God’s Great universe is already an elephant and we are blind men just ‘laying a hand’ on some part of this elephant…
ReplyDeleteIf we add to this the spiritual aspects of God’s vast creation, such as ‘the explanations of the concepts of prayer, salvation through grace, and Heaven’, we are totally in the dark, except for His Word and the faithful witness of the saints. As such, it may well be that ‘actions will speak louder than words’. We may well remind ourselves that, as Jonathan Edwards very well stated:
Passing affections easily produce words; and words are cheap;... Christian practice is a costly laborious thing. The self denial that is required of Christians and the narrowness of the way that leads to life, don't consits in words, but in practice. Hypocrits may easily be brought to talk like saints, than to act like saints.'
Adriana
I find it interesting that this idea of taintedness is actually very close to reformed christian thought, where we view the entire world as fallen to sin and therefore thoughts are indeed tainted. However, the difference lies in assuming that simply because the idea comes from a sinful being means that the idea is sinful. Thankfully for us this is not the case and we can indeed have thoughts that are definitely true even though one might argue that they are still tainted to a degree leading me to feel that the taint does not necessarily invalidate a thought or statement.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said in the last paragraph, as you talked about how we cannot go on and evangelize about heaven and hell while the persone doesn't even understand the existance of the supernatural world.
ReplyDeleteIt essential to establish a common ground in order to start explaining.