"Truth--Assumption, Presuppostion, and Frame of Reference"

Puzzle Instructions.  Without making an "X" in the following diagram, draw two perfectly strait lines, two dots per line which at some point intersect.  Can you do it?   Here is the diagram.

 

FRAME OF REFERENCE 

 

Though from the world of physics, frame of reference has become employed in other application not the least of which is in the study of truth (alethology). It most often has to do with what one presupposes or one one's assumptions.  That is to say that what one assumes to be true has great power in the life of the individual for such is necessary for in order for one to arrive at some conclusion or another.

When in a disagreement, be it major or minor, most often the difference is in the divergent assumptions.  Therefore, one might safely conclude,

"It's all in the presuppositions!"

Since such is so, it is incumbent upon each of us to make a thorough examination of one's frame of reference.  Such is necessary for one to ascertain the genuineness or we might say the legitimacy of one's reality (truth).  A failure to do so will leave one afloat in the world of theoretical speculation.

So then we might conclude that it is all in the assumptions that one takes to be true.  It is presupposed assumptions that provide the capstone that holds one's truth paradigm together and consistent within itself.  If the capstone fails or is proven faulty then like an arch with a failed capstone, the truth structure then falls apart.

There is nothing more unfortunate than one who holds a faulty truth paradigm because they are unwilling to have their assumptions tested.  An example is found in the likes of the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins who were and are unwilling to debate the issue of evolutionary theory with other scientists some of whom are not even creationists but see form and order in nature.

Open or Closed System

For almost all of recorded history there has been an assumption of an open system in which God or gods had a part in one's truth paradigm.  Such a paradigm allows for the intervention of God or gods.  In Western thought it was most often Judeo-Christian while in other places it might be a pantheon of gods, some other notion of a deity, or even ancestor worship.

Even such practices as magic (not to be confused with slight of hand magic), shamanism, etc. were only possible because the practitioners and followers accepted open system theory.  However, man was to "progress" beyond open system, after all such gave room for there to be the divine and the divine sometimes is just inconvenient!

Then with the Enlightenment came rationalism and such discounted outside influence.  Left with a closed system then those who assumed this position sought to explain all of life's processes in a cause-effect modality.  This falls within the context of Western Modernism.  Those who still embraced some form of Deity took the position then that God created and left (Deism).

The difference in the two systems (there are others) was in the assumptions about outside influences.  On the one side were the open system assumptions and on the other the closed system assumptions.  Of course when pushed out to their logical ends the outcomes were truth systems that were ever diverging.

Then to the mix add the assumptions of the Post-modernist who rejects all assumptions that lead to a notion of a consistent truth paradigm.  While the Judeo-Christian position and the Modernist position at least hold that there is truth of some sort, the Post-modernist mantra goes something like, "Who says so and what do they know?"

 

Contributions to Assumptions 

 

As surely as one makes a contribution to a savings account, there are less material goods that contribute to one's assumptions.  What might contribute to such a system of assumptions?  One has noted that contained within one's assumed frame of reference are "...a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc...."*  Of course there is a healthy dose of life's experience, upbringing, formal education, informal education, etc. that contribute to one's frame of reference.  

As well one cannot over estimate the power of what the word pondering.  Found in the writings of Moses and others it is a Hebrew word which contains the idea of mentally comparing and contrasting ideas and notions. 

The point of all of this is that in order for us to come to know the truth, that is genuine reality one must enlarge his frame of reference.  Certainly there are limits to such but overall most people struggle with weak or faulty truth paradigms because they are not willing to enlarge their frame of reference.  

Want to have a look at the puzzle again?  When you saw the first rendition of the puzzle what did you assume?  Did it have anything to do with the box around the dots?  If you are like most people you made the assumption that the lines had to stay within the box which was never in the instructions.  So then what effect did adding a larger box have on your view of the puzzle?

Assumption's Contribution

 

Think then about the contribution which comes of one's assumptions.  Perhaps the greatest contribution is that of leading and guiding one to genuine reality (truth).  Truth, genuine truth is durable and so any testing thereof, inquiry into, challenge, dissecting, etc.of the genuine will leave it unscathed and perfectly intact.

As well valid assumptions provide safety.  It is as one's life experience undergoes scrutiny, that those things then contribute to one's assumptions which then provide a frame of reference for the identification and avoidance of danger.  Such is not always in a physical sense.

Continuing, it is the assumed frame of reference that allow "...an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior."**  So it is as Judeo-Christian Scripture teaches, that which is inside is connected to that which is outside.  So if the inside is filled with faulty assumption that which ends up on the outside (words, attitudes, and actions) will be faulty.

 

Enlarge Your Frame of Reference

 

 The point of all of this is quite simple.  We do well to examine quite carefully what we believe, compare it to other things we know, seek to enlarge our frame of reference, and keep the process going.  Remember this, "Genuine truth is durable and eternal.  It will stand any and all tests." 

However, keep in mind that man in his design and construction was never, ever intended to superintend such processes alone and without regard for the Divine.
____________________
*quoted in part from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frame+of+reference
**Ibid.

"Does the God Gene Prove God?"

As If God Needed Someone to Prove His Existence!

There are I suppose two positions one might take when it comes to genuine science.  One can join the weight of history and view science as that which reveals and explains Scripture and faith.  There of course is another option.  It is that one can join the relatively recent (post enlightenment) group and seek to discredit Scripture and faith by using Science.

The discredit crowd will choose their particular issue and claim that the Bible in general and Jesus in particular could have said something about it.  Of course, such would turn the Bible into a science book rather than what it is, the revelation of just who Jesus is and what He has done for mankind.

Then too, it really would prove nothing for the skeptical would find some other lack and make the same claim that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are invalid because they do not treat ____________ (you fill in the blank)l

That being said the Bible does contain a great deal of indirect reference to matters of nature.  For example Jesus talked about the coming day of the Lord in terms of various activities in the Jewish household.  Since the coming day of the Lord is a point in time event and since being in bed, grinding, and being in the field would point to that which we call time zones or different parts of the day occurring at the same time.

Another is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes where Solomon writes of wind currents and the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

Then too consider that much early science was accomplished by people of faith.  Now there were differences in doctrine but the following men were committed Christians.

Copernicus, the first astronomer of the scientific revolution

Galileo discovered the laws of dynamics and is known for his achievements in astronomy. 

Kepler, the German astronomer, a contemporary of Galileo

 Newton on the Scriptures

Newton's mathematics influences optics, mechanics, and celestial dynamics*

These are but a few of the men who are joined by women who made a difference not because they devalued Scripture by their science but because they valued both Science and Scripture.  In fact, if you read the article cited below you will find that Newton wrote over a million words in his discussions of Scripture.  

Well, then what happened?  Why the change?

 

"Shifts in Thinking"

Perhaps the greatest influence was as the result of the Great Enlightenment and the coming of rationalism.  The point of agreement between Judeo-Christian (European thinking) and Rationalism is that there at least is genuine reality.  They did not agree on what constituted truth but they at least could agree that there was such a thing as truth.  Such difference was largely based upon the difference between revelation and rationalism (Modernism).

Again, there were different beginning points the outcomes were many times divergent but at leas there was an agreement that there was some kind of genuine reality.  However, a third movement would enter the picture--a movement that begin with yet another starting point.  The movement is Post-Modernism and further distanced itself from Scripture and matters of faith. 

Beginning some 150 years ago, the shift became more pronounced with a further move away from the Divine and toward secularism.  Secular Science came to the fore with the result that it was not even willing to exist along the side of Faith and Scripture.  In many cases it sought to discredit the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. 

Hitchens

 

"Extensions of Science"

As many will know, if you follow mathematics, physics, etc. out far enough they begin to merge into a philosophy as opposed to what we think of as algebra or geometry.  When that happens others enter the discussion, philosophers.  So it is that the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens not only enter the discussion but as their thinking gains traction, they begin to influence what happens back up the process and in the arena of research.

Now the outcome of research is that it is not so much science but philosophy and so instead of provable science you now have speculative or theoretical science with it emphasis on probabilities etc.  Of course the more speculative and probability you add to the discussion the more one's biases and presuppositions can enter into the discussion and such is not without influence in the outcomes.  Empiricism is now lost.

 

"The God Gene"

Now add the "God gene" into the discussion.  Of course such spawns a plethora of discussions and debates.  What secular science cannot answer is the reason it is there for it serves no evolutionary purpose.

For those who accept the notions of there being a Divine designer and Creator, the idea of a God gene is not problematic.  Such being a genetic reality (if it is true) is consistent with something that Christians have been saying for years.  God created man with a need for the Divine.  The Bible tells it this way, "...that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Romans 1:19).  Once again, the Bible is not a science book but peaking through its pages is science.

On the other side of the discussion the secular evolutionist would say that such is simply a mutation, a quirk of the evolutionary process.  Further they would argue that this is a genetic dead end and that one day it too will mutate away and man will become completely free of the need for religion.

 

"Secular Spirituality"

Of course, this presents another problem.  What is one to do to meet the need fostered by the God gene when it is activated?  The answer is a fairly recent division of spirituality and religion.  That is to say that one can have a spiritual dimension in life without the inconvenience of Scripture, doctrine, creed, and denomination, etc.   

At a recent lecture on the subject, it was presented that things that speak to the deepest parts of man, speak to this spiritual dimension.  Such things as poetry, music, other of the arts, and a whole host of physical experiences will plunge the individual to a revelation, a consciousness of this arena of the individual.  Even Richard Dawkins give some credence to the notion of spirituality calling it "sexed up atheism." 

+ + + + + +

In closing, it seems to me that this notion of there being a spiritual dimension to man even though conflicted still in all takes us back to the beginning point of this post.  It seems to me that it takes us back to the Judeo-Christian notion of revealed reality.  However, since God is not involved this time it is getting in contact with the inner self.

That being said, would it not be easier just to give in to the God that is, rather than seeking the god that is within.  Remember the God that is, is infinite while the god within is finite and temporary.finite and as fragile as our mental capacity to understand and choose our way.


An interesting treatment of the "God gene" may be found at http://www.bethelcollege.edu/users/berkebj/Marian/God%20in%20Our%20Genes%20TEXT%20ONLY.pdf 

___________
* see article at http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm

"The Progression / Regression of Durable Truth" CT3

Overview:  In this section consideration will be given to how secular man views the "growth" of truth.  To be sure it is presented in a simple format.  The first section will be the "progression" of durable truth.  The second will be a discussion of the "regression" of durable truth as man entered the picture.  The final section ask the reader a question, "Which model of truth is more durable?"

The "Progression" of Truth

Judeo-Christian Belief:  When one views the panoramas of history there is but one religion which is being currently practiced which pre-dates all other religions.  This would be true unless one holds the conviction that there were peoples who predate the events recorded in open words of the Torah.  The religion is Judaism.

Adding to that statement is a notion held by many if not most people of Christian conviction.  It is that their roots and foundations are in the Jewish faith.  Thus the term Judeo-Christian.  The basic understanding involved is that in order to understand Christianity and Christian thought, one must come to some understanding of Jewish matters and especially those recorded in the Jewish writings (the Old Testament) culture at the time of Christ (the Gospel narratives).

To do divide Christianity from its Jewish roots and the Jewish culture of its times is to tempt the possibility of dealing in mistaken error.  The other end of the spectrum of the false is Christian hearsay. 

These two backgrounds or knowledge foundations then allow for the understanding of Christian Theology.  Though this is by no means a complete treatment of the subject, and indeed an oversimplification, it allows for the following discussion of the place of Judeo-Christian Thought in the larger scheme of how western man has come to view truth and life.

In order to understand this section, reference is made to the material in previous blogs.

Judeo-Christian Foundations of Truth:

As previously noted, Judaism predates all other religions and systems of faith.  Beside that which is discussed above there is another reason that the term, Judeo-Christian exists.  It is because there are common threats of truth that course their way through both systems of faith.

• Both agree that there is transcendent truth that finds its origin in the Divine
• Both agree that Divinely revealed truth is completely congruent with the character and nature of God.
• Both agree that such transcendent truth as exists is revealed to mankind
• Both agree that such transcendent truth exists whether it is recognized or ignored
• Both agree that transcendent truth is universal, therefore it has consistency and integrity throughout all ages and among all peoples
• Both agree that transcendent truth is objective and not subjective.

The outcome of such belief is that Judeo-Christian faith is a belief with God about,

• The importance of humanity and a high view of man and human life
• The importance of progress and the critical nature of same
• The importance of reason is found in it relationship with revelation.  
• The importance of interdisciplinary truth and that such truth must have integrity in presupposition, content, and process.

However, with Enlightenment there came a shift that swept across the western world.  The result was and continues to be an emphasis upon man and his capacities, absent the "God Factor."  Today we call it secularism.

The "Regression" of Truth

The more that man has attempted to redefine the origin and transmission of truth, the more confusing that man "discovered" truth became and becomes.  This will be seen in the following material on Modernism and Post-Modernism.  The outcome is that the more man has been involved at the exclusion of God, in this matter of truth, the more unreliable has become that truth!


Modernism attempts to "Trump" Judeo-Christian Truth:  Modernism presents itself as superseding the antiquate and outdated Judeo-Christian thinking.  It held that the "God Factor" at best was myth and at worse was a deliberate attempt to subjugate various races, genders, national groups, etc.

Modernism holds that such truths as exist are not transcendent, that is they do not have their origin in the Divine.  They very much hold that the notion of God is dead!  That is not to say that those who hold this position ever believed that the Divine lived and then died.  It is the idea that the notion and therefore the influence of God on western culture is an antiquated and dead notion.  That death includes all of the attendant truth to include theology, doctrine, the influences of the Church in history, etc.

Without there being the Divine, revelation cannot possibly exist for it would have no origin.

"No revelation, no Divine!  Know revelation, know the Divine."

Therefore such revelation as is embraced throughout Judeo-Christian history is not held to be valid and therefore, such truth as is discovered comes by human rationalism, scientific discovery, and as well such truth as may be postulated from existence.  Such a position is based on a very high view of man, man's capacities.
Because of that high view of man and because God is excluded from the discussion there are the following pathways to truth.

• Rationalism theorizes that through Idealism and Mentalism truth may be known.  Rational processes of the mind are key to this theory.
• Empiricism theorizes that through Science, Naturalism, Materialism, Mechanism truth may be known.  Truth is derived from how one observes and processes those observations.
• Existentialism theorizes that through the Sensationalism truth may be known.  Truth is known through what one senses and feels.

The outcome of such belief is that Modernism is a truth that comes in and of a closed system.  That is to say there is no Divine influence in and upon the system of truth the Modernist postulates.  As to the previously posted discussions of Ethics vs Morals, since there is no transcendent truth, man's best guess at what is right and correct is from these three categories just listed.

For example, in empiricism man may observe and test the values of a culture and decide what at least 51% of that culture hold to be true.  In this example truth is then imply a social construct or a truth born of cultural mores.  Of course just because a majority of the culture believes something to be true does not make it so.

Post Modernism revealed

The Post-Modernist rejects all previous notions of and arguments for truth.  While the Modernist and those of Judeo-Christian belief agree that there is this "stuff" called truth, this group rejects all of the above discussion regarding the matter.

Therefore, there is no God or even god, transcendent truth, revelation, universal truth, objective truth!  All is rejected.  In its extreme forms it is titled, Nihilism.  It is the Post-Modernist that tacitly or directly seeks to remove any and all restraint from the individual.  The outcome is that there is a spiraling descent into ethical chaos.  Such is not without implications for the mental-emotional-volitional-social elements of one's being.

Notice that without some way to know and embrace truth in the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and actions of life; there are consequences to include but not be limited to the following.

• There is no basis for values thus no basis for judging right from wrong and good from evil.  
• There is no basis for gaining a sense of confidence which results from right action.
• There is no definition of roles and boundaries.
• There is no basis for meaningful discussions of truth for common presupposition does not exist
• There is no common way to process information--logic does not exist
• There is no basis for building self esteem which comes from aligning one's thoughts and actions with belief.
• There is no basis for relationship (in theory)

One might comfortably conclude that without the restraint of a belief (truth) system there is a type of anarchy both in the individual and as well in the relationships of those individuals who believe and accept post modernism.

One of the tests of the validity and veracity of truth is whether it is even possible for such to exist.  Take for example the previously listed qualities of the Post-Modernist.  If more than one person holds the Post- Modern position and discusses same with another some sort of relationship has to exist.

Relationships can only come when there is common language, common thought and/or common purpose.  In this case there is a common value in rejecting Judeo-Christian belief and Modernism.  Thus there is common thought and in some cases, corporate action.  In the expression of a common value, a form of "truth" is being acknowledged  and accepted.  Thus there is a truth standard and a major flaw in Post-Modernism.

Which is the More Durable Truth?

My thought is that most people seem to find comfort and security in the notion of durability.  That is to say that if something or someone can be counted upon when all else fails, it gives a certain confidence, a certain sense of comfort, a feeling of security where otherwise none exists.

With that thought the following is offered.

The reality of truth is that, if the best you can do is man’s truth (Modernism), it is better than no truth (Post-Modernism)!  Therefore, I believe that Post-Modernism is trumped by Modernism.  However, I believe that the prudent thinker will conclude that Judeo-Christian belief trumps both of the previous.

Also consider, if you can have a truth that is, external to the individual and culture and thus is universal,   objective in the sense that it does not change with the circumstances, most of all transcendent in that it finds its origin in the Divine, the outcome is an open system of truth (Judeo-Christian).  Such truth is a more durable truth and my view is a more durable truth which has stood the test of time, culture, race, etc. is to be preferred over all other truth systems.

"Ethical Truth vs. Moral Truth Revisited"

Truth claims!

• Is it possible that one can find safety and security without a validation of belief?
• How is it that one can know that their beliefs are in fact true?  
• What claims of validity can one offer as proof to themselves and to others?  
• Is there confirmation and thus confidence because of the logic in their truth claim?  

Certainly there are many who would validate one's pathway to truth.  For example those who hold a  Judeo-Christian ethical view of life believe with one another that there is such a thing as Divine revelation.

Then there are those who hold a  Modernist moral view of life who would agree that there is in fact this body of "stuff" that can be labeled as "truth."  They may disagree on what is in that collection of "stuff" and they may disagree how one arrives at what goes in that collection of "stuff" but they would agree that there is "stuff" called truth.

So then both the Judeo-Christian thinker and the Modernist thinker would agree that there is some sort of truth.  They may disagree as to pathway to, what qualifies as, the characteristics of, but not at the notion of there being  some "stuff" we call truth!

Then too the Modernist thinker would agree with his fellows about "truth" in at least one respect.  They both would postulate that truth is discovered through human effort.  That is discovered through one's rational process, scientific discovery, collective opinion,  cultural behavior norms etc.

Since such "truth" as may be discovered is relative not universal, subjective not objective, etc. there is the potential for conflict within the Modernist position.  In other words, one man's "fact" might be another man's "fallacy" or "fiction."  Even so they would agree on the validity of there being a pathways (different as they might be) to their particular set of "stuff" they call truth.

However,  the question of logic must be introduced into the discussion.  In other words, if a generality fails to be logical in content and process, then more than likely it leads to an invalid position.  Such logic would go on to say that if it can be proven that there is at least one exception, one erroneous element, or at least one inconsistency to the position held, then the table is set for two other questions.

They are these.  First, has not the basic generality been invalidated by one or more of the things just mentioned.  Second, since the door is now open to exceptions, error, and/or inconsistency, how many other problems might there be?

Are you with me so far?

Remember now the Modernist makes the claim that there are no universal truths and in fact all truth is man discovered and is relative even unique to time, culture, the individual, etc.

So here is the dilemma  Is not the proposition that there is no universal truth in and of itself a generality and thus a universal truth?  If one accepts such to be so, then the Modernist has just made a "logic" hole in his no universal truth claim.  (We might at this point ask of other problems with their "stuff" called truth?)

That then leads to another question.  How many other universal truths might be lurking about within his argument or perhaps out there just outside his consciousness?  Oh by the way, the proposition of there being no universal truth when argued by the Modernist shares characteristics with ethical truth, that is it is held to apply across time and culture etc.  It is held to apply no matter the situation or the individual.

Should not those who hold this position "fess up" and admit that in at least one instance they hold a universal objective truth!  If they do of course they open the door to there being other universal truth.

"Nice argument," one may say.  "Don't believe it but, nice argument."  Well, other posts will continue the discussion.  In the mean time maybe the following is worth thinking about.

Could it be that there not being universal objective truth leaves the individual cut loose form the very things that allow him confidence in the content and processes of this thought life which then has implications for his actions?.  Could it be that cutting the individual's moorings from universal objective truth has a debilitating effect upon the relationships that one has with himself and thus others?  Personally, I am convinced it is so!