Riddled with Contradictions?

I'm reading one of those rare books that has already significantly influenced my thinking before I’ve read half of it. It's called The Art of Living Consciously. The author, Nathaniel Branden, begins with a quick, wonderfully concrete primer about reason and rational thought that I've already spent hours contemplating and expounding upon in writing (for fun and hopefully an upcoming post or two).

I randomly happened across this book at the library and am so glad I did. It's not every day I come across ideas so clear and compelling, groundbreaking, yet familiar-feeling. Safe, in the way integrity is safe even though it's dangerous. I have no guarantees about where this path will lead me, but I know at least the ground below me in the pursuit of conscious living is rock and not sand. The author is a careful and conscientious thinker and builds his ideas from the ground up. Hey, that kind of sounds like being a Christ-follower: no guarantees except that you're in the path of truth and building on solid rock.

I appreciate that this book is not written by a believer. I enjoy finding common ground with those whose spiritual views differ from my own. When I began the book, I didn't have any idea what the author's beliefs might be, so I instinctively looked for clues, since I usually find that a person's belief system colors every part of their thought conclusions.

The author condemns contradictions in thinking. He emphasizes in a pull-out quote that, “Most people are unaware that their thinking and value system may be riddled with contradictions.” I quite agree, and this can certainly extend to all manner of belief systems. One of my last blog posts is about this.

Branden says, “Sometimes we believe two statements are contradictory and later discover they are not, by expanding our knowledge to include a frame of reference in which a seeming incompatibility dissolves. For example, a person with only a limited understanding of the terms ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ might assume it is contradictory to say, ‘He is not religious, although he is very spiritual.’ A deeper understanding, however, would disclose that the presumed contradiction is only illusory.” When I read this, the wording gave me my first sense that I wouldn't have the same belief system as the author, that he'd claim spirituality while eschewing religion, but it was just a gut feeling. I agree with him that it's imprecise to conflate religiosity with spirituality.

Then I got another hint that was pretty hard to miss. Under “instances of teaching that do violence to a young mind" by containing inherent contradictions, he lists, "Ours is a god of love and infinite benevolence, and if you do not embrace him, he will make you burn forever in hell.” At first I was taken aback by this comment. Perhaps there's no hostility in it, but I automatically read it as though there was anger behind it. Of course anger is a fair response if this teaching is harming young minds. This is an objection to Christianity I've heard many times. But is it a fair one? Does it reflect what's really in the Bible or in sound theology? That is up for debate, I suppose. At any rate, I wanted a resolution that would satisfy me. I didn't want to permit contradictions in my thinking, especially having just read about reason. After some consideration I decided Branden might discover this is not as contradictory as he thinks by expanding his knowledge to a larger frame of reference. I think his presumed contradiction is only illusory. “Ours is a God of love and infinite benevolence, and if you persist in choosing a life apart from Him, in time it will come to feel like hell, because you’ve chosen to turn your back on love and infinite benevolence, and the logic espoused in this book dictates you cannot have that which you actively succeed in choosing against.”