A Christian says Christ’s resurrection is attested to by eyewitnesses. An Atheist replies that the Christian never personally saw it, so they should not believe it. The Christian replies to that by saying the Atheist never personally saw an atom under a microscope. The Atheist then replies, “but I could.”

I have found myself in discourse like this. I have seen others in this conversation. I would go as far to say this is a pretty common dialogue tree when venturing into the realm of apologetics. I want to further the conversation, taking inspiration from Michael Polanyi.

The reply back to the Atheist is generally something like, “but you haven’t,” or a quiet concession of the point. Sometimes the conversation goes down the path of how the Atheist is relying on faith that scientists correctly report the atom, but I find it usually fizzles out. The conversation generally resumes back to “but I could see it, theoretically.”

I think that this conversation fizzling out is a symptom of our limp-wristedness. This argument is truly gold and works in our favour — we just haven’t dissected and analyzed it enough to understand its value. Let’s walk through that together.

Atomic Vision

The argument hinges on the “I could” of the Atheist. Let’s bracket the reliance on faith and other branches of discussion — those will be mentioned in due time — and focus instead on that potential for seeing an atom. If we defeat the argument that they could hypothetically see an atom, we will walk down a broadening street of analytic potential.

Could you go and see an atom? I’m really not so sure. First and foremost, you would have to find a space to conduct such an experiment. I suppose this could be done by renting a laboratory. Great. But who can feasibly do this? Furthermore, how about the use of the scientific instruments in the lab? Are we to assume that a complete layman with no scientific degree or practical experience whatsoever would both be able to and know how to use an instrument? And complicating this, why assume that they would know how to use it without breaking it? This is a hidden proposition on behalf of the Atheist: laymen and those with no training or knowledge would be able to wander into a lab and know how to operate highly complex machinery. I think this falls flat on its face; for what is the point of the education and learning how to operate instruments that scientists undergo? Why do we divide scientific labour in the first place if it is supposedly so easy and accessible?

As we can see, it is not possible to go and look at an atom. But let’s steelman the argument and admit somehow that the above can be done. Say we admit the point that your average person could walk in and perform analysis using scientific instrumentation. What do we think would happen if he discovered something that contradicts scientific consensus? Are we to assume that he is wrong? Surely this is the default position, and it would seem right to say so; for why would we assume (1) that he knows he has found a contradiction, (2) that someone so untrained was able to find one, and most importantly, (3), he has found something that the entire scientific community — made up of highly trained professionals — has overlooked.

The third point is truly the crux of the argument. In our hypothetical, do we not make an appeal to authority? We do this whenever an argument against scientific consensus arises in the real world, so this is not restricted to our hypothetical. We make a silent pivot to taking the voice of scientific consensus as authoritative over our truth-seeking average person. This proves that even if the average person pokes a hole in general scientific consensus we are more comfortable and likely to take the side of science than that of the average person. We, in other words, do not actually care if we could “look ourselves.” We have a deep trust of authority, and will not throw out our already existing conceptions even if we are the ones that saw the contradiction through the microscope.

Let’s pause here. I don’t actually think an appeal to authority is necessarily wrong. As in, if we understand it as being “these people claim to have seen X, let’s trust them; though they are not correct just because they are authority.” I want to further consolidate and review the ground we have gained by fetching this far deep.

Realistically speaking, the average person could not rent a lab and then figure out how to use ultrapowerful microscopes to view the atom and then know how to interpret what he sees and then know how to draw a conclusion. But even if we grant that they could, we certainly don’t find ourselves on the side of the average person’s findings; rather, we are very secure taking the established authority’s consensus as being veracious rather than the average person’s finding.

This means that the move of saying “but I could” is not a valid one. And we can further illustrate our point. How could one possibly get the raw images from the James Webb telescope? Can he go and rent the NASA offices for a few moments and send them to his friends? How can he prove the existence of the James Webb? Can he spot the telescope in the night’s sky? Obviously not! Can he go and do the same for climate data or chemical formulations or the Large Hadron Collider? An emphatic “No!”

Therefore, we Christians can reply, “no, you cannot just go and do it.” Certain events and certain findings can never be replicated, and certain tools required for those findings can never be accessed.

Funnily, this brings us back to our starting point. The Atheist, thinking his potential for replication defeats the Christian argument, has simply set up a parallel religious community.

We need to do a “brass tacks” analysis of the situation. If the Atheist falls back onto “but I could” we have still gained significant ground. For they proudly admit that they haven’t seen the thing they speak about. The significance of this admission is that they admit their beliefs are based on the authority of another man’s voice. They admit they have not seen the atom, but they believe in it because someone else ordained in the scientific community said so. This is inarguably a faithful act; and it is worth understanding it as such. Thus, a parallel religious community is formed.

Again, I don’t think there’s anything irrational about trusting others. What I think is irrational is the Atheist allowing faith only for their religious community. Indeed, this is how we share knowledge: some have certain experiences, share those experiences, and others are free to choose to believe what they want about it — but none are justified in picking and choosing which side is free to follow this process, and none are justified in doubting this process.

Conclusion and Orthodox Practicability

To conclude, because we have found and demonstrated that they cannot “just go and look,” they lose the wind out of their argument’s sails. “You can go and look?,” we say, “Where are your tools?”

We have found that the rebuttal “but I could” silently pivots to accepting someone else’s findings based on their authority and community conferral; and this is an act of faith. Therefore, their reply is a win for the Christian position.

The Orthodox practicability lies in this: if we ourselves know these things about the scientific institution, it stops looking like such a behemoth. This provides us with some feelings of security and assurance. I think this line of argumentation is typically not fleshed out. For some reason, we leave it and allow the Atheist’s objection to remain as the last word. But we shouldn’t — at least not in our own hearts. We can legitimately say they have formed a religious community founded on faith and not on direct eyewitness account of its followers.

We can allow this to drive better discourse with people. We should not be argumentative, but we should be informed of what we are talking about so that we can perhaps better reach and communicate with people. If we have our arsenal loaded with well thought through arguments, it is more likely that we can speak the truth in love to people.

The next time we encounter such dialogue, we can always politely ask, “Where are your tools?”

When we use the word “possession,” what surfaces are thoughts of spooky ghosts, crazy exorcisms, and an overall feeling of antiquity. It’s hard to take the word seriously when all that is associated with it are Hollywood movies and jokes aimed at delegitimizing the word.

Maybe that’s part of the world’s agenda. Maybe the word is purposefully delegitimized so you don’t think twice about it. Maybe not. But I want to legitimize the word and shed some light on how it can be used as a powerful spiritual hermeneutic.

We need to first move away from the Hollywood demonization of the word possession. All the word means is “to have, own, or hold something.” I can possess something in my hand. My chair possesses my body when I sit. This word can be used without all the baggage plainly in day to day life.

Let’s use common speech to further my point. Isn’t it common to say, “this has got a hold of me,” when referring to a hobby or a fad that has gripped you? Furthermore, do we not also say that someone “has a hold of us?” I’m sure you can see what I’m leading to here: common phrases are synonymous with the word possession.

And does the same meaning not hold when we simply use the word “possess” in these sentences after removing the word “possess” from the Hollywood context? It seems proper to say that a certain fad has possession over you. Does that fad not exercise some control over you? It seems as though you are letting it dictate your daily life. If a certain musical artist “has got a hold of you” and because of that you are always turning them on whenever there is silence, is it not fair to say there is an element of possession? If a fad has gotten so much a hold over you that it “lives in your head rent free” and then gets embodied by way of spending money, is there not an element of possession in both your internal and external life?

I think the point is established. We removed the word from its spooky context, established how its synonyms are used in common parlance, and then re-established the word with a non-spooky context.

The Human Ghost

Let’s move up another level. Do we not say that people are “beholden” to greed? Are people not “hungry” for power? Are people not “driven” by success? Take a look at the words we use in everyday speech! “Beholden” quite literally means “be held by”; “hungry” signifies an internal appetite for something; and “driven” quite literally is communicating that something other than self has assumed the steering wheel of a person. These are all synonyms for possession, we are just afraid to use the word!

To drive the point home further, what about when we say, “he’s in good spirits.” Or, “she’s a gentle spirit.” And also, “he’s in the Christmas spirit,” or “has the spirit of a warrior.” It would seem that our daily diction already informs us of the concept of possession. Dealing with the crux of the issue, we will also sometimes plainly say that “he is possessed by this idea.” But when we use the word in this sort of a sentence, we seem to signal to each other that we use this word metaphorically; we want to say possession, but we don’t want to own the spiritual consequences.

From all that has been said, it seems natural to say that someone can be possessed by things. Why are we delegitimizing a word that accurately fits the description? Is it because we are afraid to admit that an emotion, by itself, is incapable of possession? I find that this question is never asked in the contemporary day. What’s interesting is that in the denial of an emotion’s power to possess, that is, if we say that an emotion in it of itself is incapable of possession, then it paradoxically seems we sign up for a whole host of spiritual claims that must be accounted for. That’s scary.

To elucidate upon what I mean, we can ask ourselves, “how can you be possessed by an emotion?” That sentiment, when taken a closer look at, makes no sense. An emotion is something felt. Are you not in control of acting on your emotions? Or, if you act on your emotions because they (entity) were so strong (description of entity) in a given moment, perhaps it makes more sense to say that you are indeed possessed by that entity; for if you are not in possession of it, it must be in possession of you. That ghost inside of you that is in control lost a negotiation to an emotion for bodily expression, and maybe it makes more sense to think of that emotion as a spirit with an ability to possess, and that it is vying for power in the form of embodiment.

Did you not lose the internal negotiation to something, and as a result you acted out? Speaking of the term “acted out,” what are you acting out of? Acting out of character? Indeed, it seems that the thing driving you in that moment is not yourself, but something that has got a hold of you.

Orthodox Practicability

I think the takeaway from what has been said is that we can legitimately think of ourselves as giving possession of our bodies over to things, and that this happens regularly. The Orthodox practicability in this is that we can perform a sort of “brass tacks” analysis on ourselves when we are reflecting on our day. At the end of the day, when we are praying to Christ, we can ask ourselves what we embodied at given moments. “Was something pride? Was something gluttony? What was being embodied in an argument? Was something lust?” And on the flip side, “Was I embodying humility? Was I embodying love? Was I embodying patience?” This prompt allows us to extract what exactly we think we were embodying, and in doing so, we will be able to analyze if what we embodied was good merely by glancing upon our answer. If we embodied pride, we don’t need to dissect further because we have identified an issue we must work on and repent for. The same goes for the other passions; and a similar analysis can be done in a positive manner when reflecting upon potential virtues being embodied. In this way, we can find both what to repent for and what to thank God for.

This offers a way we can look at our life and reflect upon what is controlling us daily. It should be noted that we don’t have to confine our conversation merely to vice, but we can expand the range of our conversation to include music, entertainment, and conversation topics. We can discern what attachments we have and how they dictate our actions. We can also discern which are worth holding on to.

Furthermore, what practicability I am offering is not to be used to incite anxiety. I am not saying an exorcism is required after every transgression. I am not saying we are actively demon possessed at all times. I am saying that we need to be careful of what we embody. We can use this idea of possession to find out what we have attachments to, and to find out if those attachments are healthy or unhealthy when taken within the context of the Orthodox Christian spiritual life.

As an added note, I think the disuse of “possession” came due to secularization, and a motivation behind writing this article is that of re-enchanting our lives. There are times wherein “possession” is overused or perverted, but I don’t believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We can certaintly use the word in our lives in a measured, reasonable, and stable way, and I hope that this essay contributes to that.

Bishop Berkeley offered a challenge to those who believe in an external world, and this extended to those who describe the world as being made up purely of a mathematical skeleton separate from human consciousness. The group of people still challenged by this today is called Empiricists. The view he challenged is still around today and is encapsulated by your standard, run-of-the-mill science-y view: the tree you see is not a tree; it is x wide, y tall, z deep; devoid of “objective” colour or texture. This stands as a brief explanation to give some context of the landscape of thought, not an exhaustive overview.

Berkeley’s challenge was to say, “Imagine that true.” No, really, imagine it. Try to imagine a tree with no colour or texture or extension in space. It’s impossible. Is your mental tree clear? It has taken on the colour of your imaginal background. It has no texture? That’s called smooth. It has no lines of extension? You are not imagining a tree.

From this, he concludes that it is silly to imagine a depersonalized world because you can’t conceive of it. There is no “objective world” external to us in the form of bodies described by math. The world we interact with is the world. And the world is colourful. The world is shapely. The world is textured.

I find this argument genius. How can we have a whole tradition of people claiming to be strictly empirical, which is a reliance on the data presented by the five senses, yet also believing in a made-up realm of pure math that they never interact with, see, or participate in? Furthermore, this conceptual realm is posited to be the “true” reality and our perceptual realm is thought to be inherently deceiving because our perception is untrustworthy. This falters, though, as H.H. Price says in his Given that we have to assign at least some level of trust to our senses, because if we render them untrustworthy, then that means our scientific findings -- which are validated by our empirical senses -- are also untrustworthy. This includes our mathematical world.

I think Berkeley succeeds in his argument that the world has colour and shape and brightness. And now I am stepping in with my desire to take it even further. I remember reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and he says that, “If the world has no meaning, then we would not have found that out.” In other words, if the world has no meaning, and that is a meaningful statement, we could not conclude it has no meaning; the conclusion is that the cosmos is teeming with meaning.

A Personal World

I am going to attempt to synthesize these two great thinkers, offering a worldview I think aligns with Orthodox Christianity. My goal is to demonstrate that personability is a fundamental aspect of the cosmos; and personability contains certain powers which entail meaningfulness.

My first proof is that you cannot conceive of a world that has no meaning. You can try to do it, but you shall soon find that you fall back into Berkeley’s argument. Say, in your conceptual realm of meaninglessness, you take a “hard” stance of meaninglessness. This may mean complete nothingness; pure black/darkness/colourlessness, pure chaos, no extensions in space or forms of objects. I would contend that sense data is present as you have some perception of colourlessness. In your attempt to neutralize colour, you are imagining some colour and reasoning by analogy that this represents a colourlessness. You cannot imagine no colour. Likewise, pure chaos can be signified by a symbol or a feeling -- both of these are sense data and convey meaning. The attempt to do this exercise presupposes sense data itself, as you are standing outside of your creation looking in, so in your mind you are present spatially. That means you have been caught by Berkeley on the presence of sense data. You aren’t able to imagine nothingness, as a ‘nothingness’ thought simply would not be tainted by ideas of imagination, as our imagination uses sense data.

If you take a “soft” stance of meaningless, which can be that you spot objects but you halt judgement of them and act as though they are meaningless, there is too an admittance of sense data. In either case scenario of meaninglessness, sense data is present. This means a world with no sense data is inconceivable.

Where I take this argument further is that in our imaginings, the presence of sense data means personability, which entails intelligibility. A person is receiving sense data, and this is a fundamental aspect of the equation. I argue this because Berkeley’s argument doesn’t end at sense data; it entails us. The conversation that was started by Berkeley about our perceptible world being the world suggests that meaningfulness is built into the cosmos. Because persons are talking about sense data, and persons have intelligibility, it is illogical to exclude ourselves from the picture and preclude our abilities from bearing on the cosmos. This is why my point that sense data is ever-present is so important.

Following the same line of logic that Berkeley spelt out, if sense-data is indeed proper to the world, then so is our personhood; we cannot imagine a world devoid of person. Therefore, a non-personal world is an inaccurate account of the world.

Data’s presence in the form of sense data has already been demonstrated. What is interesting is that in our attempted creations of meaninglessness, there is both the presence of data, and this data is always processed into information. The notion of meaninglessness is inherently “datafull” or else it could not be communicated. “Nothingness” signals blackness; “colourless tree” forms distinct borders and a focal point in the mind’s eye. The reverse is true also: the sense impression of a tree is automatically processed as “tree.” No one is thinking, “Brown-textured-large slowly tapering as it moves up with textured out-lines that attach to gr-- oh yes, a tree!” Therefore data -- intellectual or sensible -- is always interpreted and rendered information by virtue of our God-given power of intelligibility. The very fact that the agents, tasked with imagining a world both without sense data or meaning, are people, is a proof that the cosmos is inherently personal. To fit this takeaway into the larger whole being presented: not only is the world colourful, it is also personal and therefore intelligible.

I’m going to take a moment to pause and explain what I mean. Berkeley’s argument demonstrates that the world -- whatever is out there -- is colourful. I am taking a second to say, “Okay, data is a part of this world. What things are accessing this data? Persons. What are persons endowed with? Intelligibility. What happens when persons, endowed with intelligibility, are presented datum? It is rendered information. That means for data to exist it has to be co-mingling with meaning in some way, and intelligible creatures can discern the information. If there were no meaning whatsoever, there would be nothing to utter.” This description of what I am expressing demonstrates a few things: Persons are a part of the world. These persons can find meaning, and they can only find meaning in things meaningful. Because persons are in the world, the world has personability, and our existence is a proof of this. These persons find meaning in data through their power of intelligibility, which means that meaning exists. Essentially, I am expanding Berkeley’s claim about the ontology of sense data to a logical end: persons and their abilities.

It can be said that if data is present, then a personal world is. Because people are as essential to the cosmos as what is being presented by sense data, the cosmos -- insofar as we could ever tell or conceive of -- is personal. The objective account of the cosmos is that it both contains and is made up of persons, and these persons are equipped with the power of intelligibility. If the cosmos is personal, then it is intelligible. It follows from this that everything is meaningful. This is because for information to be present, there must be something with the power of both receiving something informative, as well as rendering something informative. The opposite is also true, for if there is intelligibility, then something has to be there to be made intelligible: a meaning substratum cloaked in data. Hence, intelligibility is as fundamental to the cosmos as dirt is, because we are as fundamental to the cosmos as dirt is. If there is intelligibility there is meaning, and if there is meaning there is intelligibility.

Even in the very act of saying either “Data is meaningful,” or “Data is not meaningful,” a meaningful distinction is made; it is impossible to imagine data as being meaningless. The rendering of something meaningless -- or meaningful -- is a meaningful distinction, and this distinction is made by persons.

Therefore, it is our role to figure out what information is about. I can see the conversation degrading into equivocation of the word “meaning,” especially considering my comment that “it is impossible to imagine data as being meaningless,” so I will attempt to describe meaning as I see it.

Meaning In Two Senses

We can quibble if information is meaningful, say the random set of numbers 118237, but this is not a discussion about meaning itself. We are only asking ourselves if select datum is meaningful, typically in service of social value. As has been demonstrated, the fact that data are present means that meaning is, we just haven’t figured out how to organize it in a way to convey meaning to each other. This is where I see the possible equivocation happening. Say 118237 is a code, that would mean its meaning is somewhat defined socially; its meaning is between people at a given time. This does not mean that it is only meaningful socially. It is data in the form of numbers. That means a world exists in which a conversation on the meaning of numbers can take place, which necessitates the conclusion that meaning is present. Recall earlier that uttering something truly meaningless is impossible. This is true for understanding the preconditions of conversation regarding the numbers: they can be manipulated, and can be grasped by a mind; they can be spoken about and communicated. Discussions can be held about relativity or objectivity of numbers. A meaningless world would present itself dataless, as there would be no information to offer. An impersonal world would not even allow for the hypothetical to occur in the mind of a person; and this includes hypothetically removing oneself from the hypothetical. There would just be nothingness; no preconditions for data or information. And so, the world is personal and meaningful.

The utterance, “this is meaningless,” in common parlance is then something akin to, “I don’t see how this fits into the picture; I do not understand this thing.” Or, “This doesn’t serve my purpose.” Because data is immediately rendered information in the soul, and our internal story acts as the interpreter of information, what someone considers meaningful is going to be based on their story. That is why a Soviet and an Orthodox can look at a monastic community and walk away with different conclusions regarding the meaningfulness of monasticism. Meaning is understood in comparison with the whole, as the whole provides meaning.

That is why the organization and organizer of meaning is important. The form meaning takes on will be influenced by how it is organized. The understanding that underlying narrative and story influences how one views the meaning of an object is the important concept to grasp here. Some things derive their meaning from how they serve you and your mission.

Orthodox Practicability

Herein lies a practical takeaway. To discard your childhood toys because they are deemed meaningless misses the point. They are meaningful: they served you and your growth, they act as figures another person made, and they are a symbol of childhood joy. They taught you how the world works, how to play with others, and facts about the world. But they can also be acknowledged as not serving your mission in life now, and this where our shorthand, “this is useless/meaningless,” comes from. They simply don’t fit into your picture as you have it framed. But to disregard them fully is not the best way we can deal with them. We can acknowledge them as having played a large part in our life and being awesome for the time we used them, and also recognize that their meaning to us now is an object of charity. Perhaps this is why St. Basil says that your unused shoes are the homeless’ and the poor’s; the things you count as useless or meaningless are apart of your story now, and their meaning can be reorganized to promote your Christian journey. The underlying meaning substratum is present, we just have to figure out how to manipulate and organize it.

Remember that designating something meaningless is an interpretation of its meaning. Us Christians can mobilize this knowledge by reinterpreting and retooling things thrown our way in life. The extra food given to you is not luck; it is a blessing from God. The clothes you no longer use are not yours to bin, but awaiting a body in need of adorning. The struggles in life are not torments and hardships, but crosses to bear and lessons to transmit. Everything is able to be retooled to serve our higher purpose.

Therefore, this thing us Western folk love to do of imagining the “objective” world is the least objective thing we can do. Why attempt to depersonalize a world that, as far as we are ever able to tell, is personal? Why would the removal of ourselves in conceiving the world form a so-called “objective account” of the world, when the true objective account is that we are indeed apart of this world? And furthermore, why would we rid the world of its meaning? The very fact that we are here, are intelligible, and can discern meaning means that the world is meaningful. We cannot reason out of this with our imaginations, as the “objective” world is the world that includes us.

I find this idea interesting because there’s a couple of clues that lead to insights that are helpful to understand. For starters, the phrasing “philosophy shifted” implies that the teleology of philosophy is dynamic. To make this sentiment easier to understand, it can be said that philosophy started to play a different game. The shift in the aim of philosophy marked different rules and boundary conditions.

Because philosophy is a fallible field, that means the shift in focus can be for the worse -- and I am of the impression that it was. This, in tandem with the fact that philosophy can shift games, means that you have the power to both disagree with the game being played and also advocate for a different game.

This offers some room to enfranchise us. I feel quite at liberty to say that I disagree with the current game of justifying the skeptic. I think this aim of philosophy cultivates a certain attitude of continued skepticism and need for constant intellectual revolution. I don’t see it as being constructive. I think this has been borne out in the modern philosophical tradition. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the conclusions drawn, it is inarguable that the very heritage of the Christian West has been undermined; Nation has been deconstructed; Identity has been re-identified; Language has been retooled; and God has been deprioritized. This is precisely because we have felt the need to justify the skeptic; the monster is never satisfied.

And so, the question remains, “is this good?” I think not; destructivity is not the way to go, at least not for a Christian. A destructive mindset is just that: destructive. It doesn’t build nor does it provide. A destructive mindset also seems to beget a strange habit in people: paralysis. People become paralyzed in the world because they become so deeply obsessed with holding the correct views that they constantly subject themselves to unending scrutiny. Everything is in a constant state of revision, instead of accepting certain grounding facts and a story from which to build. This causes skepticism.

It’s not that we are forced or necessitated to sit and justify ourselves to the skeptic. We don’t have to be determined to be destructive as well. These are choices, no matter how automatic they may seem. When questioned by a skeptic, not justifying yourself is just as logically possible a choice as justifying yourself to them is; and the same can be said of how much liberty you are at. But, one choice is going to be more productive than the other. This is precisely why your scope and aim of philosophy matters so much: you are just as free to choose paralysis and destruction as you are power and enacting creativity. And you are inevitably forced to choose a scope and aim, either by force -- in the domain of being prompted for reason -- or by taking the time to decide which is best.

It’s true that everyone is at freedom to question anything. Usually this is embodied by skeptical people never finding a satisfactory answer in their study of religious people. I think we can flip this script, and in a constructive way. We are at liberty to question the underlying spirit that is always questioning and never building. Is that spirit one that provides for a good life? Does the acquisition of it help anyone achieve the things they want to achieve? Do I want to be in that state? Your answer to this is not nothing; it is what you are going to live with until you either change your answer or die.

My point with this is not to say that we should be judging people. I am saying that I think it’s fair to discern what is being said. St. Maximus says that wisdom’s beauty is knowledge put into practice -- if a philosophy is being embodied, and the fruit is not sweet, why listen to it?

And to address another objection that may be brought up, even the saying, “the fruit is not good,” is interacting with a benchmark, and this benchmark is objective. I don’t believe this way of thinking I am offering falls into subjectivism; in fact, it’s been born from careful consideration of what is objective, and then taking the step to do my best to live that to the best of my ability: Orthodox Christianity.

Because of my Orthodoxy, I know what state I want to be in: the bliss of the Holy Spirit. And I know where to find that: His Church. I know the role models to look to: the Saints; and I know what I want to be: a Saint. If I am set on what I want and know where to find it, with the knowledge that these desires are both aligning with the objective benchmark of Good and our natural desire to be aligned with Him in likeness, what’s the point of justifying myself to someone objecting? And moreover, why would I tell them my belief unprompted, instead of showing it to them by lived experience?

I am of the opinion that I am not here to logically justify myself to anyone at all turns. That’s different from saying that I cannot back up our claims with good reason and evidence. I am ready, in fact, to defend my Orthodox Christian views. It’s just that I am so confident in the Church He has given us that I feel comfortable enough to live it. So my approach is different: an offering of how to live a good life, crafting in the Good. And I am interested in hearing suggestions of how to do that.

I think this is what our view of philosophy should be. The time spent justifying could be spent in prayer. Or reading Holy Scripture. Or feeding the poor. So why not readjust our understanding of philosophy to assist us in using our time productively? The name of the game should be figuring out how we can use our faculties to embody Good -- Christ -- in the world.

This approach is holistic in scope; it’s not about the mere affirmation of certain logical propositions -- those are undoubtedly important -- but also the understanding that beliefs are constantly embodied. Inaction is embodied as much as action is. The reality is that for each day you wake up, you are thrust into the arena of action by force; you are forced into embodying something, so have it not be nothing.

I am making the case for the old game. I am exhorting my fellow Christians to drop the need to justify ourselves to anyone demanding a justification. That doesn’t mean cut yourself off from any new suggestion. It does mean discern where the source of critique is coming from. We should be studying the True, the Good, and the Beautiful -- and His name is Christ. We should be so rampant about our faith in Him that we are made peaceful and loving. Our study finds its end in embodiment.

I think this is a common habit. Usually it is considered praiseworthy or respectable to do so because doing this means you are evaluating opposite perspectives, and implied in this is that you are growing and learning.

I’m now of the opinion that this is the incorrect way to approach thought. We are all familiar with the fact that often when you present contrary evidence to someone, they are more likely to bolster their beliefs than to change their mind.

This feeling of duty arises because we do not understand the fact that sentences are not evaluated independently, but always in comparison with the whole. This is an important insight to internalize, be aware of, and use.

The aforementioned “mental virtue” of appraising every thought is extremely dangerous. The school of thought that says to inspect every thought no matter what treats thought like a no-lose proposition. It almost treats thinking like it has no end goal; the point of thinking is to think, or in common parlance, “it’s about the journey”.

This is dangerous because firstly, it has the danger of potentially introducing corrupted thoughts into one’s system of beliefs, secondly, thought does have a point, and thirdly, it doesn’t recognize either of these things.

My first argument offers another view on thought, which is that thought is a whole thing and is systematized. It is not made up of independent clauses and beliefs. This has been given to us by Christ.

⁴³ “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. ⁴⁴ For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.

To narrow the focus of the words of the Lord to this topic, with the addendum that this by no means exhausts the meaning of what the Lord says, the imagery of a tree is used to demonstrate that fruit (thought) is connected to trees (system).

This is demonstrable in that certain pieces of evidence are not interpreted the same way. Some Christians can read John 6 and think Christ is not talking about being the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb, whereas others interpret John 6 as affirming the Eucharist. The same evidence is provided, but different underlying beliefs shape how that evidence is interpreted.

So, if we understand belief as being structural, it makes sense to then say certain thoughts or beliefs can be introduced which will corrupt the tree. A thought which contains bad content can be thought of as “just” an independent thought that has nothing to do with the tree, or it can be thought of as introducing a harmful species of insects to our tree bearing good fruit.

The latter understanding is how bad thoughts should be understood. They are not an innocent, lexically independent string of symbols, but things which contain the potential to infect (or grow) a tree. Thoughts are a truly risky thing to hold and behold, and it’s valid to flag some thoughts as too pernicious to consider holding onto to preserve the whole tree, which should be anchored in the Truth, Christ.

Moving on to point two, I posit that thought does have an end point. A proof is that to say thought is to no end is to give it an end: suspension. Instead of giving an explicit end point of where thought ought to drive you, thought is told to drive around aimlessly; instead of saying, “Drive to X,” one is saying, “Drive around wherever.” This is assigning an end-goal to thought, while simultaneously claiming not to.

The destination of one’s thought is going to rely on underlying, ultimately spiritual beliefs usually entailed by one’s metaphysical propositions regarding anthropology. As an Orthodox Christian, it seems only sensible to say that the final cause of every bit of information, including thought, is to lead us back towards Him.

That means that any thought which enters our mind has to be discerned through this lens. If a violent thought enters our mind, it seems right to ask if any further energy investment into that thought is likely to yield an environment which invites His indwelling. In the case of a violent thought, it is very easy to render it poisonous to our whole tree; further investment into that thought will likely spawn two more bad thoughts, and then four, until our metaphorical tree is infested with insects.

Regarding point three: the ignorance of all of this is poisonous. To not view thought in this way is to make oneself vulnerable to it. If you’re going to be forced (and you are) into the game of determining an end-goal for thought, it is wise to play that game in such a way to determine which thoughts help you serve your End -- God.

I have two proposals, one operates on what not to think, and one with what to think. For the sake of brevity and not robbing an explanation of the latter case, I will offer a solution from the former.

A “useless box” is an intellectual tool that appears, on my account, to be a feature of every worldview. I believe it’s important not merely to have one – every belief system indeed has one -- but to have its entry-requirements sharply defined and made explicit. I define a useless box as being a metaphor for having defined criteria of thoughts which are not to be considered, and thus “thrown away” into the useless box.

I think the criteria can be broken up into two categories: general, universal criteria, and personal criteria. An example of general and universal criteria are the teachings of Christ. Do not lust, do not be greedy, do not allow bad thoughts to take hold within.

⁴⁵ A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

It is essential to flag spiritually dangerous thoughts and toss them in the useless bin before they anchor in your heart. This includes not just thoughts that will lead to sin, but also preposterous things. Preposterous things can be described as thoughts produced by alien, secular, non-Christian worldviews. One can think of large, modern society-wide movements. One can also find small examples that are a result of the larger problems.

As was stated earlier, useless boxes are built into every worldview. Therefore, when talking about why it is essential to flag spiritually dangerous thoughts, it has to be understood that we are not particularly given a choice to have a useless box. If it is understood that we are forced to have one, then the question shifts from why to how; how we can understand the criteria by which to discriminate thoughts, and why we have that criterion.

That’s why understanding the end point of thought is so vital in choosing our criteria. If the goal of Christian spiritual life is peace, humility, and love, then thoughts need to be understood as an input to our spiritual life which should be assisting in an output in our spiritual life. Contemplating angry thoughts will assist in producing fruits of anger, but we don’t want those. Contemplating thoughts of love and humility will assist you in producing fruit of love and humility. And to clarify, thoughts are not everything in the spiritual life, but they’re also not nothing. Negative thoughts will be inevitable, but we should choose to let them go so as to protect our heart; and this is only going to be effective if we are regularly praying. The end goal is Christ, and thought should mirror this.

Moving to the personal criteria, these are going to be formed based on personal choice. If, for example, I have a wife and children, then any thought which enters my mind promoting harm towards them must be properly understood. I would have to ask myself, “Are my wife and children worth not questioning their worth?” The answer is obviously yes, and by this process the hierarchy of importance is discovered. In this process it is understood which thoughts ought to be thrown away: thoughts that promote ideas contrary to family. And these personal criteria are far from subjective in the sense of being removed from Christ. Family is important because it relates back to Christ. For reference, this is a template of thought that is highly applicable in day-to-day life.

Because the answer was “yes” to valuing family over certain thoughts, that means those thoughts can be thrown into the useless box. This category of personal criterion – as the description suggests -- is going to be dependent upon each person and is subjective in some sense because it depends upon a myriad of personal factors, ranging from experience and interests to duties and responsibilities. These personal criteria should be more subject to revision, as opposed to the general and objective criteria that Christ gave us (these are to remain permanently in place). Even then, the criteria described in the personal category will have varying levels of strength; thoughts of harming family should probably always be thrown into the useless box, whereas strength of opinion on things like a favourite chip flavour can be more susceptible to revision. Exploring the personal category will illumine what things are truly important in one’s life. It’s also fair to say that if certain beliefs or strengths of belief within the realm of the personal category are producing fruit contrary to Christ, say for instance producing a quarrelsome life, then our garden within our hearts is in need of some pest removal. It helps organize, root out, and root in beliefs to align ourselves with Christ.

Having a useless bin means dropping certain thoughts. Meaning, not allowing them to take a deeper hold in your heart. It is about not arguing with and entertaining thoughts. Sometimes the greatest thing you can do is understand that a thought is energy-sapping, and the best way to deal with that thought is by not entertaining it. The greatest act of will is sometimes choosing not to will. We are all forced into willing through this great game of thought, so we have to be careful with where our energy investment goes. Because our lifetime is finite, we should not waste it on the useless and empty. Instead, I suggest we focus it all towards Christ and have our thoughts assist us in this burden by working for us, not against us.

To end, I will return to the beginning. Ultimately, the useless box helps lighten our burden by allowing greater submission to His Church. Knowing that it is not necessary to sift through the nooks and crannies of every bit of information makes it easier to submit to the Church’s teaching on a given thing. It allows for freedom knowing that your salvation does not rest on how good your argumentation is against a given thought. If we know how to recognize thoughts and flag them as bad, then we can recognize the good ones and invite them into the garden in our hearts. The end goal of knowledge and thought is to enrich our spiritual gardens, helping us get closer to Christ our God.

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matt. 6:21)

The conclusions that modern thought draws are all going to be tainted by its denial of spirituality. Sometimes it will be obviously displayed at the surface of thought, and other times only upon close inspection. What is important to note is that in both cases, the deepest pockets of their inner "web of beliefs" are corrupted. Unequivocally and univocally, despite how different each camp superficially presents, all camps and flavours of Materialism are preoccupied with material goods as their end, despite how diametrically opposed the different camps can appear on the surface.

That's why most options of thought afforded to us today are unfulfilling: they're running on false spiritual propositions. Hence why the world feels so soulless and dead. We are told a false story: we're just our money. Or our gender. Or our worldly position. Any attempt to fiddle around with spirituality is deemed appropriate only for the irrational and senseless.

This doesn't work. We need to understand that every single claim about the world is going to entail claims about our spirituality. These are inescapable. To deny spirituality is as insane as denying eyesight while using it; human spirits are denying themselves dignity, feel depressed, and then say they have no spirit to feel with. The result is death; societal, physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental.

This is precisely why the answer to "what we are" is so important. Every philosophical, religious, economic and political belief is answering it, and their answers must account for the whole human condition. The move to deny spirituality is a move in the domain of spirituality. Escaping spirituality is impossible in a worldview that accounts for and deals with humanity. Handwaving, discrediting, and gaslighting are valid logical moves in the same sense as moving a pawn one square forward is, but these reactions are thoroughly incorrect, inadequate, and destructive.

When we are dealing with and talking about complex systems of thought, from Conservatism to Liberalism; Socialism to Capitalism; Analytical to Continental, no matter how fascinating and promising they seem at the surface level, their answer about spirituality has to be investigated. You can think about a worldview as being like a funnel in reverse: skinny at the bottom, with a few foundational answers, but as the system moves forwards the foundational principles work themselves out and expand in width and volume; all of these answers, though, can be tracked down to the few foundational answers that have the potential to enlighten or darken the whole set of beliefs.

With all of this said, it's fair to ask about where to go from these thoughts. To reflect upon the vantage point established by this article, it seems fair to say that spirituality is necessary and unavoidable for a worldview to account for, and that the denial of it constructs a worldview wherein humanity is excluded; worldviews without an account of humanity are failed worldviews.

My proposal is that we all personally, in our hearts, recognize ourselves for what we are: spiritual beings. We are intrinsically interested in the transcendent and sublime; we are not reduced to raw material, but instead we interpret it. We have a creative will that wishes to participate and co-create in Creation. From there, we must understand that we are Images of God. Our dignity is bestowed unto us due to our nature. We are valued because we have inherent worth, not because of external factors. We Christians have to internalize the Gospel account of what we are and what is within us; we are not merely dopamine and receptors, but the Kingdom of God. Practicable from this article is a tool in the form of a heuristic used to discern worldviews, but also a justification for and encouragement to embrace what we are. We have great reason, as Christians, to stick to these beliefs and never err from them. Our Lord told us what we are, and it speaks to us deeply because we find correspondence with His words within; we have very real reason and justification to hold onto these words and realize them. We are Images of God with a value both extreme and inherent, and this belief must be held tightly so that we can live full lives, ever present with Christ our God.

I think this is unfair. Every other belief system has its “sacred cows”, so-to-speak. Often, if you critique an atheist’s faith in evolution, you will find that they will throw away every critique you hand them. This same principle applies to every group, from the most scientific to the most religious.

This critique of being close-minded is a very powerful one, it would seem. Many people are afraid of being “close-minded”, and being called close-minded will often lead people to re-evaluate even the statement found most offensive by their initial judgement. This is because we people often do not know what hills are worth dying on. In modern society, it is almost praised as virtuous if you are so “open-minded” that you have no hill worth dying on. It even seems that, especially if you are a Christian, you need to be open-minded, because open-mindedness is conflated with Christian virtue.

I am calling that into question. It is quite clear to me that everyone has some belief they hold so dearly. Ironically, those who praise open-mindedness are often not open-minded enough to handle critiques of being open-minded; this alone illustrates that close-mindedness is built into every paradigm.

If being closed to change in some belief is built into every system of belief, then I propose we ought to find what is worth not changing. It seems foolish to affirm the belief that we should embrace contradiction just for the sake of openness; instead, we should fiercely stand by some beliefs. It is rational and admirable to plant your stake on some beliefs and say, “this is something I value deeply and is True; I’m not willing to change it”.

Christians especially need to understand this. We also need to understand that we should not go around with fierce dogmatism on every single issue. I think there are only a handful of issues in life that are worth standing on until death.

We Christians must understand the value of our faith. Speaking now for Orthodox Christianity, we must understand that this isn’t a feel-good group. St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and ground of all Truth. Christ is the God-Man that descended unto humanity so that we can be made like Him. He is the Word; all things make sense through Him. All things were created through Him.

These are far from light statements. These are truths that are so foundational and so earth-shattering that they must be stood by. Us Orthodox Christians must be willing to stand by these beliefs. These truths are so strong, so true, and provide so much value that we cannot back off of them out of fear of being called close minded.

We have to embrace these truths with so much certainty that we are called close minded. St. Athanasius the Great is credited with saying that “if the world is against the truth, then I am against the world”. These fundamental truths of Christianity are what brought the Light to the world – the world without hospitals, charities, and a self-sacrificial love for neighbour and enemy is the world which decided not to hold these fundamental truths.

The martyrs saw the immeasurable value of these truths. They said to themselves, “Christ and His Church are worth more than my own life”. They chose to die for their Lord. For them, to live in rejection of these truths was death. To die for Him was to live.

I think then, with all of this said, we shouldn’t be afraid to be close-minded to some things. In fact, being open-minded to some things is incredibly dangerous. In the Beatitudes, Christ says to ^“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

Our Lord commands us to discern. “False prophets” implies the knowledge of the truth, and that we need to stand by the truth, lest we lose our souls. If we know the Truth – Christ – and the Church, which is the pillar and ground of all truth, then it only seems rational to stand by this. If standing by the Truth means that I am close-minded to falsehood, I want that. If being called “close-minded” by those who do not stand by the Truth means that my soul may be with my Lord, I want that. I think that’s completely reasonable and worth standing by and being close-minded about.

I likewise do not think that this view necessarily falls into pride. If we are primarily concerned with our eternal destinations, then it follows that some things must remain inconsiderable. For the mathematician, they must uphold the laws of mathematics. The moment they begin to doubt that 1+1=2, everything collapses. For the Christian, the moment we begin to listen and lend credence to the words from the Evil One, everything collapses. It is best, therefore, to shut out some beliefs and show no willingness to budge. We have to be as certain in our Christian beliefs with the same unwillingness to change as we are about mathematical truths.

I propose we live in joy and a humble boldness holding these things sacred. We should embrace our obstinance to change our beliefs on these things. I don’t see there being any virtue in skepticism regarding the addition of one and one. In fact, I see that the refusal to hold some things dogmatically leads to the destruction of the whole. Likewise, I don’t see there being any virtue in skepticism regarding the Truth that upholds all truths. We need to embrace our unwillingness to change our core beliefs about Christ; the Truth has descended from above, died, and rose again: all should hear this, and all who believe it should hold it with absolute certainty. We have the Light, and we need to be firm in our foundation to be the light-tower of the world (Matt 5:14-16).

The question of identity is a question of “what” we are. Depending on the person you’re asking, you’re likely to get a few answers from some common streams of thought: to some, a hairless ape; to others, an accidental outgrowth of neurons leading to consciousness; or, if you’re blessed to be in an urban area, your sexuality. What do these proposed identities result in? Largely, anxiety. But it would be disingenuous to fail in presenting the other jewels adorning the crown of consequent contemporary solutions to identity: depression, cowardice, malice, coldness.

Ultimately, these aforementioned identities bind the person. The human experience is hampered and locked away under a thick dark cloud, with the key thrown away into the projected void. No longer is the person free to feel genuine enjoyment in the moment, but instead they are to feel guilty for enjoying it: for why does a clump of cells — which is ultimately useless and destructive to the environment of flora and fauna surrounding it — deserve to feel happy? Why feel joy towards an accomplishment achieved by the firing of neurons outside of your control? Why, even, feel in the moment? We all know that being in the moment leaves you vulnerable to feeling, and what you feel can radically rock your inner world, so perhaps the best way to deal with this problem is to disassociate from the moment by acting in a way that is not fully you, so that you never get judged by the outside, hostile world.

My goal with this series of Images of Freedom articles is to address how a faulty sense of identity leads to a host of issues, and how Orthodoxy allowed the Greats to peacefully conquer and transform the world with boldness. Therefore, I want to address these issues from an Orthodox Christian perspective and offer solutions that are highly practical and inherently freeing. Because of this, I find it inappropriate to not tackle these problems spiritually. That’s because I think these are inherently spiritual issues, not merely mental problems. By completely secularizing how we view, address, and solve what’s happening in our hearts and minds, we are making ourselves practical atheists. Atheism in practice has, ironically, resulted in biblical levels of disaster, and its contemporary practice has failed to address the needs of the people. Why continue the trend? Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is so intensely focused on people and the dignity of man that thousands upon thousands of pages have been written to address the inner spiritual life, and if but a few of these pages are exposed to modernity, the Light of the world will shine upon all. The root of understanding the human condition and progressing towards a true liberation is in understanding our “what-ness” — that we are Images of God.