Empty and Meaningless vs. Meaning and Purpose:
A quick comparison of the worldviews of Werner Erhart and Rick Warren (pictured).

My brother and his wife have recently been through the Forum and the Advanced Course of Landmark Education, which grew out of the work of Werner Erhart, originally called Erhart Sensitivity Training, or EST.

I wanted to write them a little about my take on this material in retrospect. I took it years ago. I endorsed the Curriculum for Living, of which these courses are two-thirds, because they give the student a rich perspective on their own ways of thinking and the “meaning making” that surrounds them. However, there are reasons to find “the training” troubling as well. One of them is the subject of this little blurb. It is the “distinction” that life is “empty and meaningless” and therefore you assign your own meaning to it and so does everyone else. That distinction is not helpful to the pursuit of God.

The reason I’m writing this now is that during my recent stay in Louisville, in their bed, I saw Rick Warren’s book on the bedside table. The purpose of Warren’t book is to show the opposite: viz, life has meaning and purpose. The gospel of Jesus Christ sanctifies life and the teachings of Genesis and the Torah through Jesus interpretation and the bible as a whole show it. The gospel (good news), in brief, is that what is in front of us is not meaningless data to be interpreted to your purpose, but instead all life has a meaning and purpose, found in Christ, the Creator, ruler and sustainer of Creation. If Jesus is who he says he is, then the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ are the most important facts in the universe. And, more, our life finds meaning and purpose by resonating with the god-Man and doing his will, not ours. You can’t get more contrast in two ideas than that.

In the Forum and Advanced Course, there is not much discussion of religion, but it is there nonetheless. The statement that life is empty and meaningless is a religious statement! No proof is offered. We are used to cultural commentators and scholars doing this, so we don’t see it. But, this statement is a religious tenet which includes the distinction that matters of faith can neither be true nor false because they are in the realm of faith, not knowledge. Once again, no proof is offered because we all believe this. Nevertheless, this too is a religious statement. It offers a “truth” without proof. It is a foundation principle for secular religion.

So, in taking the Forum and going to church or reading Rick Warren’s life, the aspirant has one foot in the Judeo-Christian worldview and one in the modern secular worldview. No wonder people feel at sea. Over time, we all have to pick. You can’t organize your life around meaningless meaning or empty fullness. We have about six thousand years of accepting and operating on the Judeo-Christian tenets and only about a hundred years of experimentation on the tenets of secular religion. We’ve had some success with the former and we have found some weaknesses in the secular paradigm, only recently. Secular humanism leads to blather and real suffering; it was and is not a panacea. In order to give it a good hearing, the cultural elites demonized Judeo-Christian truths. I think we’d better go back and see whether we threw the Christ child out with the bath water, don’t you think?

Godlessness may have a cure. Check it out.

I consider Ann Coulter a constant joy, rather than the harpie that she is portrayed to be by many on the far left. Her columns are always outrageously funny to me, because I think I know her. I've studied her a bit and don't mean to boast familiarity. It's just that like many others that I have met, she is an amalgam of a number of former and present friends.

Although she has an acerbic wit, her humor is bittersweet, not just bitter. She means what she says, but I think she delivers her rapier thrusts with glee, not anger. She truly believes that those of the liberal pursuasion are salvagable, if she can just show them the clear error of their ways. But, instead of measured critique, which seems to be ineffective and does not communicate to her audience, she flattens them with a brilliant flourish. This kind of adroit combat is lost on most on both sides of the political spectrum, I admit. But some clear thinkers, who up to the moment of her convincing defeat of a treasured idea, were only mimics of liberal positions, not true believers, are surprised and maybe changed. Since they are used to talking only to other liberals, they don't see her quick moves coming. They find themselves suddenly, intellectually on their backs, blinking up at a smiling, long-haired blond: "This moment of truth brought to you by the goddess of the right!" Since all their preparation was in shadow boxing conservatives with their liberal friends, they believe that intelligence and cleverness and wit and style were always and only characteristics of their fellow liberals. Now they are brought up short...and if their egos and intellects survive the moment, they may actually examine and even reconsider their hitherto unassailable position. "What now? I'm on my back. That blow was unexpected, devestating, but not a sucker punch. She didn't set me up, she had a better idea or argument. Now what do I do?"

So, I heartily recommend to all my liberal friends, not an abridged Ann or a column fragment argument or what someone else says about her, or a screed from a liberal web blog which cannot read her prose without choking on bile, her latest book. Read the whole book and take her arguments seriously. You may still disagree, but for heaven's sake, do it from the composition of more intelligent debating points, not reflexive rejection and personal attack. Know her for what she is: a brilliant, beautiful spokesman for the other side of the argument, someone you have never met in your present circle of friends. Tighten your own arguments by reacting to hers, not rejecting them out of hand. You may learn something. And, along the way, enjoy the wonderful, aggressive wit and writing style. Lighten up. Laugh her off, if you must, but enjoy what she is doing. She may be an acquired taste for liberals, but I think she is fun for independent thinkers of the liberal pursuasion.

Her book, The Church of Liberalism: Godless is really special. The arguments are all her own, though they derive from a lot of conversations going on all across our country these days. But, instead of superficial bumper sticker sound bite like thoughts, she actually makes detailed arguments. Read them. Chew on them. React to them. Then comment here.