"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.

To What is Your Ship Anchored?

The ship was a shallow draft, Fetcher class Destroyer (USS Marshall, DD 676).  She was a left over from World War II and the Korean Conflict.  Now she was relegated to the somewhat less than glorious task of training reserve sailors.  That is she had a skeleton crew, which was to be completed by a reserve crew (Rescrew) that could be called up to man her in wartime or in time of national need.

However, most of all she served as a floating school house for dry land reserve sailors on their two weeks of annual training.  She deserved more than that but in the wisdom of the Department of the Navy that was her lot in life and certainly better than more of her peers who had been sold for scrap.

Oh, yes, she was a she, not an it, because she like most ships had personality and much more, that defined her.  You see you could have two ships built from the same plans and both would have different ways about them.  That is why most sailors speak of one ship that they road and to which they relate, as if she was a spouse of sorts.

This cruise had been to take her from Seattle to Treasure Island, San Francisco Bay, California so the Rescrew could attend fire fighting school.  After all at sea, you had better take care of your ship for it was a long swim home.  

On the way back to her homeport, we made a stop for "Liberty" in Vancouver, B.C.  However, as it turned out the channel master could not board us until the next morning so we anchored just outside the harbor to await his arrival.  That is when the following took place.

Sometime earlier the Bridge had called for the "special sea and anchor detail."  So it was that now she is in the hands of those who not only had great skill at the helm but knew best how she answered the helm.

Soon the Bridge called, "All stop" and the constant vibration of the engines slowed to quiet and thus without power  she gradually lost her "way."  There we were "dead in the water" and soon the call came from the Bridge, "Release the anchor."  The anchor chocks had already been removed in anticipation and so at the call of the Bridge, the chain brake released.  It was then the air of the fo'c'sle  was filled with the clatter as the anchor chain which had been stowed under deck in the chain locker, ran out.  

Before long the anchor caught the bottom and once again the chain brake was set.  It was then that the Bridge called for "reverse engines" and slowly if not imperceptibly the anchor was made secure to the bottom.  Most of the slack was then taken out of the anchor chain.  When all was secured, the special sea and anchor detail was secured and since it was late in the afternoon much of "ship's work" was also "knocked off" for the day.

That night as those thing that happen aboard naval ships happen, evening chow, "Sweeper, sweepers, man your brooms, sweep down...," evening call to colors, the movie on the mess decks, lights out, the tides came and the tides went.  The ship rose and fell, as she rode that anchor chain some 360 degrees.  She was secured to her anchor and her anchor held to the bottom. 

This of course brings up a question.  It is a question that one is wise to ask.  To what are you anchored and how secure is your anchorage.  In the ebb and flow of life, various tides and currents seek to drive us in this direction or that. You see we live in the midst of a post-modern, secular, ego-centric culture where truth if it exists at all is seen as relative and ever changing.  Again, to what are you anchored?

Could it be that our skyrocketing suicide numbers, overflowing mental hospitals, counselors with full to overflowing case loads, etc are related to our disconnect and even disdain for God and His values?  Indeed are not our western societies populated by people who are confused, insecure, and easily victimized because they have no secure anchor point. Nothing which will weather the storms and uncertainties of life.

For most of the 10,000 years or so of recent history, western man has been stabilized by a belief in a god of some sort.  To cast off from that notion, as we have in the last 150 years or so since secularism has gained traction, is to leave one adrift and vulnerable as the winds of life blow and the tides of adversity run.

You see that ship avoided drifting into the shallows or the shoals that night and thus suffering damage or loss because her anchor was secure in that which would not move.  It was secure enough except that for a few sailors on deck watch fore and aft and others on watch throughout the ship, little concern was paid to her drifting.  She was as secure as that to which she was anchored.

"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

"Responding to The Intolerance of the Tolerant"

THE CHALLENGE OF GRACIOUSNESS:  May we who have standards and convictions not be intolerant of the intolerant!  What a curious situation the public debate this week as those who accept almost everything reject Chic-Fil-A based upon a thought expressed by its founder.

The owner of Chic-Fil-A simply gave his position on the matter of marriage being as the Bible describes it, between one man and one woman.  Someone said that God established marriage between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve and certainly he would agree with that idea.  Whether one agrees with it or not is not the issue.  How we disagree is in fact the concern.  Not so long ago the right was challenged with its need for graciousness in difference, now the left progressives need to hear the same admonition.

THE CHALLENGE OF BELIEFS EXPRESSED:  At question is that matter of one's right even responsibility to set forth his beliefs.  Certainly no one seems to object with those on the progressive side of the argument impose their notions but let the other side say something as benign as was said and there is an outcry but it does not end there.  Notice that there was to be a "kiss-in" as same sex couples demonstrate their "love" at Chic-Fil-A locations.

Chic-Fil-A being a privately owned company have not great responsibility to allow this sort of thing to go on however, since they seem to be gracious about this whole discourse I suspect that they will not take action.

THE CHALLENGE OF CONVICTIONS:  Such being so there are some things that we need to think about!  We who take a conservative view of the Scriptures must allow nothing to dissuade us from the position we take of the Scriptures.  The more that we are surrounded by the permissive message, the more those of us who hold to the Bible are placed in difficult even untenable positions.  Such is not so in reality only in perception.

The reality is that the same God who designed each of us in our uniqueness, also moved on righteous men of old to author the Bible.  Personally I do not find anywhere that I or anyone else is exempted from any of the Scriptures.  

There are those who would argue that the Christian's shortcomings are license for others to live outside the guidance of the Bible.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Certainly we all make mistakes but that in no way obviates others from their responsibilities.  In fact that is the value of being in a Christian community for in failure there we find support and care.  Then too there is the support to be found in prayer as we pray the Scriptures. 

THE CHALLENGE OF/TO THE CULTURE:  As alluded to earlier, there is a problem.  It is that we are so surrounded by the messages of the media and academia that we either consciously and rationally or without giving it much thought have come to embrace things that are not acceptable to God.  The drift from what is right and correct is so gradual that it is imperceptible.   However, think back a few years to what was acceptable and what was not.  

Of course the Bible is the same as it always has been.  It did not change but we did and in that course of that change we have reinterpreted the Bible to be what we want it to be. The outcome is as one post-modernist writer put it, “…we see the demise of personal definition, reason, authority. . . All intrinsic properties of the human being, along with moral worth and personal commitment, are lost from view...” (Kenneth Gergen, The Saturated Self)

Is it any wonder that people live largely insecure lives, without a sense of direction, a certain fatalism, and an inadequacy in and of themselves.  Perhaps that is why those who have followed along with culture are so threatened by those with conviction.

THE CHALLENGE OF GRACIOUSNESS:  As the business owner who made the statement regarding the family, let us take our stand wherever we are located but let us do so in wisdom.

Let us do so relationally and not with criticism and rejection

Let us do so graciously not returning evil and insult for evil and insult

Let us do so welcoming the person while disallowing the sin

Let us do so with understanding not condemning for that it is God’s to do.

Remember Jude’s command, “save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear…”  In other words, some we confront others we persuade over time but to all we in some form witness.  (Jude 23).

"Ethics vs. Morals, An Alarming Shift" CT4

Tension is a part of the human experience.  From the moment of one's birth through the death experience, on some level and to some degree there is tension.  Some of that tension originates within and a great deal of that tension is from without.  It is impossible to avoid tension as we encounter conflict with other people, conflicts within our own bodies (illness, injury, aging), tension in sorting out opposing thoughts and ideas, tension which comes of confusion born of misunderstanding, and the list goes on and on.

Overview:  Within this posting attention will be given to an example of tension as culture and the individual is called upon to experience the tension of choosing between ethics and morals. Of course it is a choice between two competing ideas of truth.  It is the tension between social construct moral theory and its effects and ethical truth and its effects.

It is but one example of many that could be cited as to how a culture cut loose of its ethical moorings is adrift in a very confusing sea of often conflicting thoughts and thus tensions.  Indeed if one views ethical thought and behavior as that which allows for the function of society, indeed it is an alarming shift!

A Shift in the View of One's Choices

In a nearby area a government agency to meet certain requirements had a policy that all newly hired employees were required to attend a Sensitivity and Diversity class.  As a part of that class attention was given  the Parameters of Culture and to the three constituent elements of those parameters.

The three elements can be further divided along a person's non-choices and choices.  Such choices as one makes of course has a direct influence upon one's thinking, attitudes, and thus life-style.  The three areas for discussion were,

• What you are born with.

The question is this.  What is it that a person is born with that is unchangeable?  While modern medical science has made some change possible that heretofore has not been possible, there for most people are some very basic things over which one has no control.  

• What your are born into.

What characterized the family, sub-culture, culture etc. into which one is born.  What is the influence of those factors upon the individual. What is the likelihood that in the course of one's life one can change these things?

• What you choose to adopt into your life and lifestyle.

The final category for discussion centered upon those things that a person experiences along the roadway of life and chooses to adopt into his life.  

The question that needs careful thought and discussion is not only what fits in each of the categories but what is the possibility that change can take place.

The breakout of the three areas discussed.

First, consider what a person is born with in terms of those unchangeable elements of one's life.  Included in the area were one's gender, one's race, and one's physical qualities.  Except for some of one's physical qualities, these are the things which one is born and these are the things that do not change no matter how long one lives or how much one might seek change.

Certainly there are elements of one's physical qualities over which one has not control.  For example, one's genome, the aging process, the effects of aging, injury, and illness, etc.  Again this category contains those things that may be influenced by decision but cannot be changed by decision.

Basis of discrimination is centered in this area.  In the truest sense of discrimination, it is based upon those things over which a person has no control.  The examples would include, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, discrimination based upon impairment caused by illness or injury.  More about this below and in a later blog.

Second, consider what a person is born into or one's ethnicity.  This category contains those elements of one's life that are part of the early experience and hold some lasting, howbeit not permanent influence.  These are those things such as food preferences, one's sense of distinctiveness, language spoken, etc.  Generally these are those things that come as the result of one's experiences early in life, possibly continue throughout one's life, but can be changed as one gains the life experience that then provides understanding and with that understanding the opportunity for choosing to change.

Third, consider what a person chooses to adopt.  These are those things one chooses to include in one's life which come about because of some experience.  These are those experiences that lead to choice, either to accept or to reject.  These are those myriad experiences in life that provide one with the opportunity to choose wither to adopt or reject ways of thinking, attitudes, actions, and habits.  These choices come as one gains life experience.

Within this model, there is a strong emphasis upon being responsible for one's choices and while generally speaking, there is very little in life over which one has control, one can control his attitudes and actions and in that sense maintain some control over one's responses.  That control gives one the power to choose his course of action beyond what circumstance would seem to dictate.

The Contemporary View of One's Choices

More recently that same government organization has the same requirement that employees attend a Sensitivity and Diversity class, however, now the tone of the material presented has changed.  The following diagram represents not only a change in content but also in the moral/ethical philosophy that underpins the course.

What you are born with and ethnic experience


What you now see is in the current training course on Parameters of Culture is that there are no longer three elements but two and the unchangeable core has been broadened out to include more than before.  That is it now include not just race, gender, and physical qualities now includes what historically was on the level where one could choose to embrace or reject certain behaviors and attitudes.

Thus, included with race, gender, and physical qualities are ethnicity and sexual orientation as unchangeable or what one is born with.  Thus the number of items which now may be the basis of discrimination have been broadened.

This interesting point is that this diagram is more a reflection of the culture (mores) than was the previous which tended toward more of an ethical view.  Therefore, we might say with accuracy that this diagram is the result of social construct theory or a reflection of the mores of the culture.

QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Why was there a shift away from the first diagram to the second?  Considering the model of ethics vs morals previously discussed in other blogs,

• Was there a change in the influence of ethical standards?  Why?
• Was there a change in moral influence? Why?
• Was there a change in the view of what constitutes genuine truth?  Why?

The reality is that there has been a change in what is viewed as genuine truth because the culture has come to accept morality or the mores of the culture over the standards as established by the ethical truths that have endured over the ages.  The outcome is that correct or incorrect action is viewed not based upon a universal standard but upon the values that the culture holds to be correct or incorrect at that particular point in time.

Is not the Law an example of ethical stability?

It can be argued that the Law is a stabilizing force in the above mentioned moral drift.  There are two caveats that need to be understood.  First, while that is largely true, it cannot be assumed that the Law always follows ethics.  For example the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was more of a decision based upon the mores of the time than upon any common law, case law, or Constitutional Law precedent.

Second, there is an assumption on the part of many that if it is legal according to the Law it is legal according to the Scriptures.  Such as in the previous example is not always true.  Therefore, one must be very discerning when it comes to the Law and religious doctrine.  The extreme case would be found in Sharia Law and Constitutional Law.

Since the U.S. Constitution was framed by men who were largely Christian it reflects the ideas of the Judeo-Christian faith and since that Constitution strongly influences the Law, the differences between the Law and Judeo-Christian belief may not be readily obvious.  Therefore, discernment as to which laws are ethically correct is in order.

What is the influence of the shift upon the individual?


Listen to the words of one of the Post Modern camp who though within the philosophy has enough intellectual honesty to call it as he sees it!  Notice that this was written over 20 years ago.  One cannot assume things have continue in any other direction than his observation.

"With the spread of postmodern consciousness, we see the demise of personal definition, reason, authority...All intrinsic properties of the human being, along with moral worth and personal commitment are lost from view..." 

--Kenneth Gergan, The Saturated Self, (New York:  Basic Books, 1991) 

Implications For Faith

The unfortunate fact is that in a number of cases the local church congregation is reflecting the trends of the culture--in this case Post Modernism has brought about an influence upon the beliefs of and the resulting action.  While this charge may be made against "mainline" churches, there are a number of "conservative" congregations that have not escaped the trend.  The outcome is some form of a Post Modern god which bears little resemblance to the God that is!

This Post-modern creation of god is,

• A god without standards since to have standards would be to offend or discriminate.
• A god without truth since this god must be all things to all people and truth exclues
• A god without a character and a nature much beyond that of mankind 
• A god without choice in that it is a god who is supposed to be on call to grant every wish
• A god without theological distinctive since the standard is what the "faithful" can agree upon

To be sure there are other elements of this god.  To sum it up, it is as one person termed it, this is a "mush god."

A Closing Question

What then are the outcomes on the "street" level where most of us live, worship, work, serve, and play?

There are many outcomes especially those who are separated by more than one generation from the ethical standards of the WW II generation.  Among the outcomes one might expect are the following.  It should not be assumed that this is an exhaustive list.

• A degraded sense of personal responsibility 
• An ego-centric view of life
• An entitlement mentality
• A victim mentality
• A distorted sense of personal boundaries
• A sense of resentment over an unfulfilled sense of entitlement
• A notion of discrimination which is in fact false
• A short sighted view of life
• A loss of sensitivity to otherness
• A failure to value human life
• A tendency for an us-them gang mentality
• An ingrained sociopathic view which allows for deviant behavior
•  A mindset and attendant behavior which while viewed as morally correct is in reality ethically wrong.

The final thought is this!  This shift has been largely out of the view of most because it has been the exclusive intellectual property of academia.  However, such is no longer true as those philosophic influences have been taught to students who are ill equipped to examine the logic and content of the belief systems they encounter as undergraduates.  Those unexamined belief systems then become ingrained and as they go out into business and government they then come to influence others who are less equipped to question.

"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.

"The Foundation of Reality/Truth"

Reality and thus truth is found in one of two places.  It is either external to the individual and culture or it is internal to the individual and culture.

When truth is external it then becomes an ethical truth or a truth that is not dependent upon the individual or the social situation in which the individual finds himself.  On the other hand when truth is thought to be internal to and thus dependent upon the individual or the social situation it is a more or moral truth.

One is as fragile as the individual while the other has the durability that comes because of its demonstrated veracity over time and culture.  One is subjective and open to one's own interpretation, thus is the basis for conflict and even hostility.  The objective truth may provide for discussion in its nuances but overall tends to unite as it is not dependent upon the whims of the individual.

The outcome of subjective truth is that it is more a reflection than anything else.  It is a reflection of the mores of the culture, the moral opinion of the individual, or some combination of the two.  It results in such things as, moral truth which reflect culture; exclusive private truth, truth that belongs to a subset of the culture but not to the whole; or self truth, that which has a very egocentric focus.

All of these are fraught with problems.  For example the truth that is a reflection of the culture is a moving truth and thus the security of knowing what is right and correct is not afforded to the one who embraces such.  Exclusive and private truth can result in the notion that because of that special truth one can behave on a different level.  Then the one with self truth has a truth that is a reflection of his morality and that morality is often no higher than his personal desires.  This is the one who give himself permission to behave as he  chooses even if it is at the expense of another.

So, what then is one's choice in this matter of reality/truth?  One choice is to build on the internal which as it turns out is ever changing--ever shifting, as the tides of personal desire and opinion ebb and flow.  The other choice is to build on that which is external to the individual and the culture, that which as noted has stood the test of time and circumstance.

As upsetting as the circumstances detailed above might be, those referenced can at the very least, agree that though different and conflicted there is some form of truth.  However, there is a greater concern that should disturb all no matter one's internal/external truth position.  It is titled the Post Modern Movement which reject all of the above!

Why should this be of concern?  The concern is that without some sense of truth, there is not sense of right and wrong--the basis of conscience.  Without conscience, there is no restraint.  Without restrain there is relational and cultural danger.

As actions grow out of the notion of no restraint, there comes the idea that anything which possession organization (organization requires some form of restraint and thus truth standard), is not just expendable but a threat to be dealt with.  In the extreme of the Post Modern cause there is the Anarchist Movement.

Again without universal truth there no restraint.  Without restraint there is a rapid decline--a downward spiral into chaos.