A Classification of Belief

It has been a while since my last post, and I haven’t posted consistently in a few years; quite understandably so, since politically I’ve been purposefully ignorant. That, however enticing of a ploy to reduce whatever stresses I might have believed to be coming from my observation of, and discussion of, the politics of America, is not a responsible action. Turning a blind eye to the troubles of Washington, (and of the world also) will only exacerbate the problem, especially if everyone who, in his mind, lacks the strength or power to incite the necessary changes decided to conform to this isolationist ideal.

It is because of my realization of this, that it was only furthering my understanding of the world as it is, that I have decided to continue my writing, perhaps less for you as the reader than for me as the writer. It is an attempt to ascertain what I believe politically, and further, to understand why. I will not constrain the entirety of my time to the parameters of the political since the principles I am about to introduce do not allow it. As to the enumeration of my political ideals:

In order to do this, I must first establish what I am. I consider myself a conservative. But what is conservatism? I consider myself, though purely governmentally, a libertarian. But can I reconcile the latter to the former? After all, conservatism is a worldview while libertarianism is, as aforesaid, a government view. And finally, I have a biblical worldview. Should I reconcile them all to that measure? Or would it be prudent to compartmentalize the various views of these things? Though I certainly thus far lack the answer to this, it is more certainly not unattainable.

A fundamental foundation is the beginning of all ideals and beliefs, for without it we would have no measure upon which to build our case, whether political or any other ideal., and thus it would be difficult to prove, or even explain for that matter, the resolution of ones beliefs while constructing the matrix of thought upon an unsteady foundation. In order to establish what I am, I must establish what I am constructing what I am upon. In man’s search for such a foundation many have been found, but all prove unsatisfying and, more importantly, unsteady. While appealing and wholly believable on the surface, they always prove to have a weakness, whether it be a logical weakness, or moral. But, as this is not a treatise on worldviews, I will not belabor the point of dispelling such views. Rather, I am here to simply establish my foundation, and furthermore, though it seems an unnecessary measure in today’s mindset of relativism, to explain why. The former is much simpler than the latter; statement much simpler than the proof or defense thereof.

There is the only one steadfast foundation upon which one may confidently build a belief, and though it may seem at first thought to some a strange and unrelated foundation for a political view, it is viable and sound. What is politics besides a mere function of society? It is men governing men, and further, imperfect men governing imperfect men. If perfect men governed there would be no need for political views, as there would be no method subject to the failure we so often see. But since it is in fact imperfect, an imperfect foundation would do nothing but aggravate the imperfections, and systems of government built upon such foundations have consistently failed. But as I said before, this is, at least for now, not a dissertation of political systems and it is not up to me to debunk them. But if government were built upon a perfect foundation and the governed also, what would result? A Utopian society? Hardly. Men are still imperfect, and the imperfections would simply manifest themselves as a perversion of the perfect. This is simply a logical string of thought, as causality dictates. However, wouldn’t it hardly require consensus that a perfect foundation is better than an imperfect one?

That perfect foundation is the scripture of God, and all the ideals therein. I will quickly defend the idea of separation of church and state, but even more quickly denounce the perversion of this principle. Instead of the church and state, it has, through the years, become the separation of God and government, the defense of their obligatory unity I have already established.

But further defense is required. We have ascertained that we must have foundation for our beliefs and that this foundation must be perfect. But truth must be attributed to any perfect ideal, otherwise it isn’t perfect. Is something false ever perfect? The answer is obvious; the question is not rhetorical. It is possible to prove, to a degree, the validity of scripture, but reason is hardly adequate to do such. It requires a level of faith to believe the authenticity of parts of it. Mere facts can be proven by scientific method, history by reliable record, but the supernatural only by faith. However, an attempt may be made at proving the morality of the scriptures. Strict adherences to the maxims of scripture have consistently produced good, as feeble of a term there is when defined by anything else but scripture. So we see that only faith in the scriptures is adequate to prove their truth. This circle of logic seems unattainable for some, but it only applies to those supernatural realms of scripture which cannot be proven by scientific or historical method. I am hardly asserting that only some of scripture is true or believable, rather I am stating the obvious. I will not believe on faith that the entirety of scripture is true. But since the historic events have been consistently proven, I can believe that it is accurate and worth believing. It is not a leap of faith to believe the scripture, but a culmination of reason, logic, and small step of faith.

It would seem necessary and logical, since it is so perfect a foundation, to build upon this. That is exactly my intention. Whatever I believe must be reconciled to this perfect measure, lest the conflict of belief to reason become so prominent as to destroy all credibility of it. Likewise, whatever I don’t believe should be derived from a provable dissidence between the ideal and the foundation. This method, in my belief, discounts all attempts at classification of one’s beliefs. Maybe one closely aligns, but never perfectly. Otherwise it would be a replica of the foundation, and thus the foundation itself. I would not, however, be so hasty to disown well-established beliefs, as they have their merits, namely that of being identifiable and recognizable. But where they fail, your foundation should succeed. Conservatism is that belief which most closely aligns with the perfect foundation. When it is necessary to classify yourself as a conservative, I do not believe it unwise to do such. But conservatism is a human principle, solid, but not unbreakable. It has, in theory, the perfect foundation, but too often is corrupted by imperfection. But, as unavoidable as that is, it is not necessary to completely disown it. This is the conclusion I have reached in this sort of crisis of identity. Now that I have concluded with a reasonable of logic and proof what I am, I will be have a provable measure in which to resolve.