“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

"Setting a Heading for the 'Truth'"

Note:  Somehow I deleted the original post.  What follows is an attempt to rewrite the post.  If you should have a copy of the original post, please forward to arobbfam@yahoo.com.  Thank you.

Maybe you saw the YouTube video of a military aircraft, a C-17 landing at the wrong airport.  If not  you may view it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuqsd_tRHw.

Did the aircrew fly a perfect downwind, base, and final?  Yes they did.
Did the aircrew turnout on the correct final heading?  Yes they did.
Did the aircrew execute a flawless landing?  Yes they did.
Did the aircrew execute a flawless roll out, tactical as it was?  Yes they did.

The problem was that both airports were on the same heading and although they did everything right, they ended up landing at the wrong airport!  Why?  Because the aircrew did not validate the decision of the pilot, assuming that he had made a correct decision.  Thus, they ended up in the wrong place on the wrong runway.

So it is with many of the decisions of our lives and as well those things which we have come to believe.  Some beliefs have consistency, integrity, even believability and yet because the underlying assumption is faulty the outcome is faulty as well.  That which appears to be true in reality is anything but so.

If you view the landing you will see that the aircrew and the airplane survived.  Not so when one lands on the wrong runways in one's life and in doing so misses the truth or reality as some choose to term it.  The consequences will be dire.

Simply said, what may sound so very good at first hearing and accepted on that level may not alert the believer in that "truth" to the difficulties in that particular belief system.  However, when one devotes effort to a deeper examination of the "truth" and one looks into the presuppositions and assumptions that underpin it then the belief breaks down.

Fortunately with the skill of the pilot, the C-17 was stopped before the end of the runway.  At some point the aircrew seeing how short the runway was, realized they had a problem.  So too with beliefs.  If one is to push them out to their logical conclusions, their failed veracity will be seen.  However, many become so caught up in the initial relationship with truth that they fail to see the eventual outcomes.

What are some of the outcomes of belief systems build on faulty assumptions?  First there is the question of validity.  Just know that a valid belief cannot be deduced based upon a faulty assumption.  In addition there can be other outcomes such as incorrect biases, chaotic relationships, deception, denial of conflicting truths (these may in fact be reality), imposition, intolerance, crisis of truth, and much, much more.

As to outcome for the C-17, you may view the take off at the following site.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=805M1svwp_8.  It is interesting as you view the various videos available at YouTube the reactions of the people.  Indeed their view of the landing and take off and their reactions were once again based upon their assumptions about the airplane's capability.

We must exercise great caution in the matter of what we accept as truth and/or reality.  Such should begin with a careful examination of such presuppositions and assumptions that underpin our beliefs.

"Blame vs. Responsibility"

Sometime ago, someone close to me make a statement, something to the effect,  "The reason I am not a Christian is that you are negative and dour and you claim to be a Christian."

Setting aside his attitude, and while his perception may or may not be true, the fact remains that seeking to divest oneself of responsibility for a faith commitment or any other responsibility by blaming another in no way obviates that blamer of his or her personal responsibility.  Such thinking is akin to "victim thinking" and because it is not legitimate in content and process breaks down rather rapidly.  Yet culture, media, and academia either tacitly or directly has sought to impose upon us the message that given the "politically correct" set of circumstances, given the superior "exclusive truth" one does not have to be responsible.

Consider the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.  In the kind of thinking that prompts such a movement, there is a notion that because they are disadvantaged in some form or another, they do not have to be responsible to obey the law, respect other people's opportunity to make a living, and generally be responsible to respect other people even their fellow protesters.  They seem to believe that they have the superior "politically correct" circumstance that trumps all else and so they can be disrespectful, defecate wherever their please, fulfill their sexual proclivities even at the expense of other protesters, and do other things as they choose.

The real truth is that no amount of "politically correct" permission will absolve a person of responsibility.  One might blame and thus claim victimization because of his surroundings, his family, his culture, his faith, etc. but still in all personal responsibility does not transfer.  As I recently wrote in another venue, one can transfer his or her job to another but not the responsibility for the accomplishing of that job.

So it is that my friend that sought to blame another--me for his failure to make a faith commitment, in no way has absolved himself of responsibility for that commitment.  In fact the sad truth is that such may allow him to sleep the sleep of denial at night but someday it will be revealed for what it is--deception!