“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 III

Part Three

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 the Reformation not the Renaissance that saw the great uptick in scientific discoveries.

Part Two answered some of the specific inaccuracies that Christianity supposedly cites against Science.  Again many of the arguments tendered by Christianity’s opponents are less that valid.  Not the least of which is the false notion that conservation Bible believing Christians oppose the legitimate sciences. 

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

Scientific Theory

It would then appear that in order to seek to gain some credibility, the closed system science people have redefined scientific theory from something to be theorized and therefore studied to a more fact based definition as in the following.

Referring to science and theory, the notion is that when the two terms are used together, the suggestion is that theory “refers to a well-developed, logically consistent explanation of a phenomenon, and an explanation that is consistent with observed facts.”

However for the evolutionist the problem of reproducible validation still remains.  For example one cannot reproduce evolution, thus it is a theory and shall remain so until there are reproducible results which confirm the notion and thus move it from theory to fact.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."  Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

(Full article available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

Inconsistent and Unfair Accusations

On the one side is atheistic science claiming that they can without legitimate scientific data make claims for valid scientific theory all the while pointing an accusing finger at the creationist with the unfounded claim that creationism is without scientific foundation.  They postulate such to be so by claiming that creationism is a wild guess and claiming that religious myth is unsupported by science.

Yet they themselves cannot explain some of the issues discussed in the previous post (Part II) and conveniently posit the notion that science will one day be able to explain these things.  Frankly it becomes of question of where one chooses to place trust. 

Libeling the Opponent

To discredit the other side of an argument by libeling or name calling is well beneath fair and respectful debate.  Such is the behavior of the one whose arguments lack substance and foundation.  To label the Children of Israel (Jews) as “slave holding goat herders” is inaccurate, libelous, and unfair.  Such is spoken out of derision not of the careful and sound study of non-biblical archeology.

Would it not be more profitable to engage in the highest tradition of argument and debate in order to attempt to prove one’s point?  Such seems lost to those who posit their own positional superiority and thus discount the realities of genuine truth.

Incomplete Quotes

For example the citing Martin Luther’s comment in Table Talk which supposedly says, “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.” is ripped right out of context and unfairly represents the position of the Reformer.

The context is a discussion as to whether children should be baptized.  The full quote is as follows.

“The anabaptists (sic) pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.  (Table Talk CCCLIII)

Said another way, Luther is dealing with children and is not making a general statement that would be inconsistent with other sections of that same collection of his thoughts.

At no point does Luther disparage learning (cf. Table Talk DCCCV). As a matter of fact, numbers of times Table Talk contains references to the learned, medicine, astronomy, understanding, science, and people such as Aristotle.  The point is that Luther makes is that by what is later titled Rationalism and reason one cannot know of Spiritual matters. 

Either—Or

The whole argument by those who oppose Christianity is an “either-or” discussion of Christianity and Science.  The fact is that the Bible does provide a foundation for the study of all knowledge.  The problems come when one seeks to do those same studies based upon a closed system secular model. 

When one accepts an open system Divine model, to be sure all will not be discovered for the miracle of creation is that it reflects the character of the Creator.  Just as God is eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and so on, so too all that the science that is to be discovered and studied will reflect those things. 

Even secular science indirectly and without meaning to acknowledge such to be so as they observe that no matter the advances man makes it is but a small understanding of the whole of reality. 

The Ultimate Problem

There is not one example that secular science can provide of randomness leading to order. It is always, always, always away from order. It is moving toward chaos and eventually entropy.

Degrading Systems, Entropy Ahead

Genuine reality to include nature is now much different than it was at the big bang. Therefore, push it out into time far enough there will come a time that its randomness will degrade exponentially.  At such a point, man’s theorizing now stressed, will not be able to theorize enough to keep ahead of the chaos.

The Theoretical as Gospel

Besides, the Theoretical Physics and Theoretical Mathematics and all the other theoretical postulations that can be put on the table are based upon theory and theory relies heavily upon presuppositions or assumptions which are to be proven.  Now as one can read in the previous section on scientific theory such postulations are more and more being accepted as genuine reality.  So the creationist presupposes a benevolent God and the secular scientist presupposes that which is necessary for his secular science.

Degrading or Dependable

The problem is that man’s theories when they leave out the Divine suffers under the decline toward entropy.   The creationist and his science suffers under no such decline but only the privilege of a deeper look into reality, the reality of the one who said that He is the same yesterday today and forever.

Why should the rational thinking person make the choice for the random over the stable? Makes no sense.  It is as if one is standing on the edge of a cliff, and has to choose between standing on Theoretical Jell-o or a unmovable boulder—a boulder that has existed at least ten times as long as the theoretical.

Summation

Anyone can argue a point through distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehood.  The key to any honest debate is to present and defend a position based on logical argument.  To argue against a distorted position is to argue against a position that does not exist.  Doing to simply means that one argues against that which does not exist.

One can always win the argument when there is not one in the opposing chair.  That in effect is what the writer of 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity does.  That is not to say that at points he does not make legitimate criticism, however at most points he fails in his characterizations of the Christian faith.

Go ahead and argue against Christianity and the Church but do not do it by arguing against the reality not one's perceptions clouded by bias and attitude.  The reality is that the Christian Faith (Orthodox, Protestant, Roman Catholic) with all of its human weakness has done more to improve conditions of mankind in this life than any other movement, faith, or belief system.

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.

"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.

"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.

"Truth or Consequences"

There is no safety in truth that is not genuine!  However, falsehood in its very degrees leads to destruction.  Beware of that which is not genuine truth.

We do well to remember that "genuine truth" does not change! No matter how ones spins it, rejects it, seeks to destroy it, and/or compromise it, genuine truth will in the end be there when the false has failed.  Genuine truth is not at the mercy of polls, opinions, the media, nor is it at the mercy of academia.

Not so with man's unproven opinions.  Take for example the matter Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and the whole notion of "global warming."  It was not too long ago that the climatologist were proposing "global cooling" and a coming ice age.  Then came "global warming."  Now we have "climate change."  The only inconvenient truth here is that the whole notion of man caused climate change is "junk science" to be sure.  How can I say that?  Consider the following.

Science--true science is built upon the idea that a discovery is characterized by at least two basic qualities.

First, it is stable, that is the scientific discovery does not change.  It can be a gateway to deeper understandings and truths but the basic theorem is stable and thus does not change.  

Second, the outcome can be validated by any scientist or laymen who cares to replicate the conditions of the original experiment.  

 "Climate change" meets neither criterion as when you remove "interpretation and opinion" from the discussion, there is little factual data.  Oh, I know, drilling through the strata of Antarctic ice, looking at tree rings etc. gives data, however such data is open to interpretation and thus is not purely factual.  Therefore it is not "genuine science" and in fact qualifies as "junk science."

Well, you might ask, "How is it that you are qualified to render this conclusion?"  The answer is quite simple.  When you look at the scientists that signed on to "climate change," you will notice that not many of them are any more qualified that I am since this is not their area of expertise.  Said another way, I am as qualified as they to discuss the veracity of this theory and I with as much expertise as they say that this is an illegitimate theory!

There is an underlying issue as well.  Consider the first part of the term, "man made."  Does it not speak to an arrogant view of man and his influence upon God's creation?  Does it not tacitly say that man's actions are greater in power than God's capacity to keep and maintain creation?

Well, you respond, I am an evolutionary atheist.  Then consider this.  The basic notions of evolutionary science (again "junk science") should encourage "climate change" since it creates an environment in which only the fit survive and thus progress further up the theorized evolutionary ladder.  Makes no sense to me why the evolutionist would not want this supposed "climate change."

"Climate change does make a difference.  There is an economic effect upon the individual and upon the economy in general.  Sure we should all be for clean air and clean water but this has gone way too far.  That brings us to this final point!

There is safety in genuine truth! Maybe that is the Genuine Inconvenient Truth!  When man individually and as a nation turns from God, there is a price to be paid and that price is that the view of God becomes distorted or all together absent.  Without the "God view" all truth becomes subjective and subject to the influences of prejudice, societal mores, bias, and results in chaos.

“Looking In All The Wrong Places”

The question in the subject line of the email caught my eye, “Looking for answers, hope, and encouragement?”  A moment before I had been reading an observation that the medical model of illness and the legal model of sin were inadequate to respond to man’s needs. 

Despite all of man’s accomplishments, still the questions are vastly greater in number than the answers, hopeless often out-darkens hope, and courage has been dissected out of encouragement.  The specifics might change but the difficulties remain.  It is as another (H.G Wells) noted, man is played out.  A prudent look at man and mankind will suggest that there is an end, a limit, a point of the exhaustion of man and mankind’s time, talent, and treasure. Such is the plight of one who lives in a closed system!

However, there is another view that though discredited by many has withstood time and thus demonstrates its veracity.  Unlike much science, sociology, psychology, religion, anthropology, etc., it has time after time demonstrated its authenticity. 

It is this.  Man and mankind do not live in a closed system but a system in which, as one termed it there is a Divine gas station attendant who is always at work putting energy into the system!  Now ask, who or what is it that answers the unanswerable questions of science?

Curious isn’t it when the non-religious skeptic is asked those questions his answer often introduces time into the question.  When true science stressed the unsustainability of evolutionary theory, time was introduced.  When man, possessed of the notion of a closed system, does not have an answer he add the time element—given enough time man will find and provide the answers.

Now for the simple question.  Would it not be easier to leave God in the picture rather than doing the secular dance around all that points to His existence and involvement in the affairs of man and the affairs of life in general? 

Indeed when I open the system to an all powerful, all knowing, all loving, ever present God I open the possibilities for answers in the confusion of life.  Hope in the darkness is now possible.  The courage of encouragement may be mine when all that is around me is failing. 

When I accept that God is trustworthy then life becomes a matter of building my belief upon and my confidence in His care—even when such is beyond my capacity to understand and explain.  Such is completely possible in the midst of a very confusing world but only as I completely abandon myself to Him.  It is then that I find that which we all desire in the deeper place, peace, contentment, and fulfillment.