“Examining One's Truth Systems”

“Examining Truth Systems”

The following is a quote from a previous blog, "Both sides of the atheism-theism question to some degree must rely upon unfounded belief. To rely upon one’s unfounded belief is to put trust in that belief—that is one puts faith in that belief." (Edited for clarity)

To trust anything or anyone is to place faith in that person or thing.  Take for example, traversing a bridge.  Even though one may not consciously do so such requires several expressions of trust (faith).  There is trust in the bridge itself, faith in the engineer that designed it, confidence in the builder that constructed it, and belief in those who maintainer it. 

The point of the previous blog (“Preponderance of Faith”*) was that beyond the knowable in any truth system, there is an area of unknowns where faith in that system is necessary. To not acknowledge such to be true is to tempt the possibility of naiveté or one might say blind faith.    

However, there is another matter to consider.  It goes something like this.  If a person has placed confidence in some truth system, then at what point is it that such a person to make a choice.  Is he willing or unwilling to interact with the attendant tough question?  It seems to me that among the responses there are five possible to consider.

DENIAL:  At the outset it is not without notice that there are those who will not acknowledge difficulties and disconnects in truth system they embrace.  Such a person is either unknowing or unwilling; either directly or tacitly avoids the tough questions.

That leads then to this.  Socrates is supposed to have said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” (Quoted in Plato’s Dialogues).  Extrapolating the thought yields the following thought, “The unexamined belief is not worth trusting.”

DECEPTION:  Then there is the possibility of being deceived by error.  The greatest of deceptions comes to those who are not willing to ask and seek the answers to the tough questions. Once such an attitude is rooted and grows it seems that such an one as holds to this attitude can become ensnared and thus find escape most difficult. 

DOGMATISM:  Someone once said, "Dogmatism kills." That comment would apply to anyone who has prematurely embraced a particular system without examination.  Once again it is that such a person is not willing to examine their own truth system.  One does not have to have advanced degrees from leading universities to understand the dangers of dogmatism.

DISTRACTION:  Without such an examination, one of the very real dangers is that one can simply gloss over such difficulties as exist.   Such a glossing over can limit one’s perspective and thus distract from another truth system that is much more defensible and thus in greater degree worthy of trust.

DESTRUCTION:  The final point is that of so destroying any and all other truth systems that one has limited his truth options.  It can progress to such a degree that the individual has become blinded to other truth options and in fact proactively destructive of other ways of thinking.  The debate in which the intelligent design people want their theory taught alongside the theory of evolution is an example.  The evolutionist as it turns out spares no effort in blocking such attempts.

The very real danger in denial, dogmatism, deception, distraction, and destruction is that of tunnel vision.  Such then leads to a limited view from which one can choose to never see other possibilities.  Another term for such is blindness.  And here is the real danger.  When the winds and storms of life breakout upon one's particular truth system, such will test the durability and sustainability of that truth system.  Choose wrong and the outcome(s) is/are dire!

*available at http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-preponderance-of-faith.html

"Christianity - Is it Opposed to Science" Part II

Part Two

Christianity Opposes Science

In Part One it was pointed out that the notion of the Church opposing science was not a legitimate assumption.  Further it was seen that a survey of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries would support the notion that it was not the Renaissance but the Reformation that saw the uptick in scientific discoveries.

In the course of those discussions there still remained several matters to discuss.  Among them are the following.

Answering the Specific Inaccuracies

All Knowledge in Scripture 

No knowing person says that all knowledge resides in the Scriptures.  That is in fact a misrepresentation of the truth that the foundation of all knowledge resides in the Scriptures. That is to say that Scripture does not exhaust all science but merely provides the foundation or the basis of science and knowledge.

Certainly as limiting as is that statement, still there are those of secular mindset who would disagree.  However, the point to consider is that the Scriptures reveal the Divine and the Divine is the basis of all reality, therefore the Divine is the basis of all true science.

Galileo’s Treatment by Pope Urban VII

The argument goes something like, because Galileo embraced the Copernican theory and therefore he fell into disfavor and was banned from teaching.  The facts are quite different.

Pope Urban VII initially supported Galileo but because of political difficulties and court intrigue and threats against his reign as pope, plus a misstep by Galileo in assigning the Popes words to a scientist known as Simplico (often wrong and inaccurate in his science) he fell out of favor and thus was placed under house arrest.

Miraculous Events 

As the result of the Age of Enlightenment, Modernism became popular among scientists and others who pursue knowledge.  Thus there is a belief in truth but that truth  is contained in a closed system.  Therefore, miracles cannot exist for there is nothing outside the closed system. 

Others, generally people of faith believe that the system is not closed but open and that the Divine can interrupt the natural forces and causes of life at any time of His choosing.  This is the Judeo-Christian truth paradigm. 

Conservative Christians Opposes Science

Those how hold to this idea again paint Christianity with a broad brush.  Take for example the question of creation or evolution.  The fact is that Conservative Christianity is far more accepting of variations in belief.  From the Divine start of everything to those who believe God started the processes and then took His hands off, Christianity has a big tent.  Much bigger than that of the secular evolutionist.

Evolution or Intelligent Design

Interesting how militant the evolutionist has become when genuine questions are asked as to the veracity and proof for his theory.  Even while casting doubt upon the evidence for creationism, such people conveniently look past the problem that they cannot answer.  For example,

Decline:  Left on its own every system decays toward chaos and yet the evolutionist postulates that it is exempted from this descent.

Intermediary Fossils:  Of the over 50,000 plus fossils, the evolutionist cannot produce one intermediary fossil.  There is no part monkey, part man. 

Faulty Assumptions:  The evolutionist discounts honest science when it produces data that does not suit the evolutionist's presuppositions and yet is willing to accept the mythical theory of evolution in the place of honest scientific work.

First Causes

Among the various issues that the Modernist scientist with their closed system theory cannot explain is that of first causes.  Assuming for a moment that the “Big Bang Theory” is true, what caused the Big Bang and from where does matter, time, and energy originate. 

While the Big Bang does explain that there was a beginning, closed system science is at a loss as to how or why it happened.  Oh, certainly there are those who place their faith in theoretical mathematics, theoretical physics and the like.  Problem is even if they unravel the Big Bang to some new theory as frequently is the case, they still cannot explain the origin of the universe.

Publically Funded Education

The creationist and intelligent design camp is asking for equal time with the evolutionist.  When ever Creationism is brought up, the evolutionist decries it as indoctrinating kids with a wild myth.  Yet, if anyone remotely suggests that public education refrain from teaching evolution they immediately fall into disfavor.  Teaching both seems to be only fair since it is not just the evolutionist that pays to fund public education.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

"That Which Confuses the Evolutionist"

There are many, many things that evolutionary theory cannot explain.  Yes, I know that I used a general term for the theory and that there are different schools of thought and different strata within those schools of thought.

Of course the old adage, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."*  So now we have among many the notion that it is no longer a theory but proven fact.  Actually science cannot prove it and any read of the history of Darwinian evolutionary theory will show that as true and genuine science has discovered more and more the theory has had to be flexed, adjusted, and changed to meet the inclusion of new information.


Leaving alone for the moment the question of ultimate beginnings, there are other questions that should cast a deep and dark shadow on this theory.  These questions begin with something that is very familiar to us--ourselves and how we interact with and deal with life.

There is within each of us the spiritual-emotional-volitional elements of man's makeup that when expressed in some way or another mitigate against or at least call into question evolutionary theory.  These are things that the evolutionist cannot explain. 

We will get to these in a moment but for those who point out in Intelligent Design there are questions that are unanswered, that would be true.  However those questions are indeed gaps in understanding and not inconsistency or that which mitigates against the notion of Intelligent Design.

For example the whole notion of love and attachment does not fit with the survival of the fittest.

Then in the rational area, there is another problem for the evolutionist.  It is the capacity for delayed gratification which again is a challenge to the notion of survival.

Then there is in the social arena, the inclination of mankind to decide for the greater good.  This was discussed in another posting, "What Does Man's Sense of Right Mean?".

Then from the Rev/Dr. Richard Johnson of First united Methodist Church and Mt Beulah United Methodist Church, Munfordville, KY,** the following thoughts. 

"Humans are not created to be godless.  If we don’t know the true God, we will make our own deities – and that is exactly what the Israelites did.  It’s a sign of our finitude, and a subconscious awareness that we need direction, purpose, and relationship with something, someone bigger than ourselves.  God created us for relationship.  God created us to be in relationship with Himself and with one another.  Tragically, we broke that relationship but we have not lost our genetic makeup which needs and must have that relationship with the Almighty."

So what is the point of this paragraph, you might wonder?  

Well, there are two worth considering.  First, evolution cannot explain man's need for God.

Within culture after culture across the world, though expressed in many, many ways there is a common element which seeks to develop some kind of a relationship with a deity.  To be sure the expressions may even be in diametrically opposed fashions but still there is the common threat of a deity which involves the worship of same.  That leads to the second observation.

Second, if you do not acknowledge the God who is, then you create a god.  Of course there are many choices.  In western materialism they may be position, power, possession, etc.  In undeveloped countries and those isolated from the West it may be more spiritual.  The point is not how, it is that there is no culture which in its privimative form did not have some kind of a superior deity.

 __________________
*"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Goebbels was not, however, an SS officer. He was Minister of Propaganda and succeeded Hitler as Chancellor, but only for a single day. The next day he and his wife poisoned their six children then took their own lives. 

from http://www.ask.com/answers/18639961/

**If you wish to get on Rev/Dr. Johnson's email list please forward a request to me and I will forward it on to him.  My email is arobbfam@yahoo.com.  Thanks.