The difference between paradox and contradiction is, essentially: l) with paradox opposites seem faithful representation of facts, perhaps in different contexts; and, 2) with contradictions two conflicting ideas cannot both be true, perhaps neither. I affirm my desk is made of oak, and I state the fact. If my friend insists that it is constructed of maple, we are in contradiction. It cannot be maple if it is oak, or vice versa. Both cannot be true, but both of us may be wrong. It may be cherry wood – neither oak nor maple. There may be more than two sides to an argument. We are a bit too simplistic in our understanding of forensics, and that possibility becomes important in the understanding of ourselves. We may have facts to truths, but manage everything badly in trying to gain order for understanding. A belief that serves in one context may be objectionable in another. Every day we engage in conversations muddled with our imperfections.
The most intriguing paradoxes in the life of mankind are theological. God, if there is perfect and omnipotent God, is able to do all things he chooses to do. He never chooses to violate truth, or love, or himself. Without God, mankind is quite adrift, unable to do anything that lasts. Death proves the statement, so we attach time dimensions to our proposals to make them practicable. But mankind is called to responsibility in Scripture. We are responsible to do this or that, and, according to the Apostle Paul: to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. It is paradoxical that near helpless persons can do something to help self and others – that can last. This is a principle that mature persons learn about and use for development and advancement in self and society. Of course, if mankind knew enough, all paradoxes would become clear and plausible – ultimately. For millennia, persons have known that heat rises. It is warmer toward the ceiling than it is on the floor. But the highest mountains have snow and cold when the valley below is warm and verdant. It cannot be true, then, that the higher point is always the warmer area. We now know that air (or the lack of it), that pressure (or the lack of it), and other forces may reverse the conclusion of a principle we observe in everyday life. Context understanding is vital for clarity.
A great paradox in each human life is the tension of good and evil. It is, perhaps, each person’s worst problem related to death and peace of mind. It creates doubt, guilt, distortion, fear, disappointment, and, generally, conflicting philosophies and conducts in life. The general society treats the complexity problem in various ways one of which is to drop God from the equation. Righteousness, as it comes from God, is no longer made a feature for mankind, no longer a requirement. By removing depravity from the debate, theorists decide that we are not as bad as we are told by biblical theology. But even these theorists know there is a mixture of something pleasant and unpleasant in mankind sufficiently troublesome to prevent us from finding needed solutions. The unpleasant they tend to call the dark side. This side is addressed as though, in the evolution mankind will grow out of it. Perhaps education and research will tide us over.
Scripture deals with the paradoxes/contradictions of mankind. The evil (human error) is admitted, is given full recognition, and is dealt with in effective fashion. But the results of that treatment become effective only when the individual is willing to accept the prescription for its application. For many that prescription is too demanding, seen as too difficult to accept. It requires humility, faith, acknowledgement to the point of repentance, and acceptance of an experience that is personal from the loving Christ. Christians learn that the prescription works for them and, if alert, they also learn that others are looking for ways to resolve the paradoxes and contradictions of their lives. Shunning fear of misunderstanding and ridicule, devout persons can live with openness about their faith and how it works to set a person free of the nagging contradictions from the sophisticated intellectual leaders about the human condition. The human escape clause may be assumed in the separation of church and state. Such a clause may imply to humanists that God is the object, not of meaning and influence, but an imaginative cover of religion with ephemeral claims and superstition not to be regarded in a world tied to nature. Beliefs at core must have some absolutism in them. One belief: Without God we have no prevailing objectivity. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020