"Walking in heuristics", REALLY?

I am quite sure the word "heuristic" is not common for you, must less the phrase "walking in heuristics." Oddly enough, you might hear this idea more often in the business world than "walking in faith". This blog is my continuing effort to bring the word faith out of the closet for many people. Obviously, if religion is common in your life story, then you are probably quite comfortable with the notion of faith. However, I have found that misconceptions of faith is a stumbling block to both the nonreligious and the religious peep to how belief influences what they think, feel, and do.

Let's start with how business executives "walk in faith" all the time, but would generally not see it that way.

This cartoon appeared in Harvard Business Review to illustrate what all business executives already know when it comes to making decisions. You can never have enough conclusive evidence through scientific inquiry to be sure of the decision you make. In his book on leadership Jack Welch, one of the most renown CEO's in our lifetime, describes "the gut" as both an emotional or instinctive response as well as fortitude and courage. In other words, 

"the gut" is a good modern way to explain faith, and trusting "the gut" to act is an obvious representation of "walking in faith". 

  
In the study of decision-making there is a concept we call "bounded rationality." March and Simon recognized years ago that rational decision-making is essentially impossible for many reasons. Simply put, we do not have enough time, money, or mental ability to examine all alternative solutions of a problem to select the best. Experts in decision-making claim that peeps are more likely to use heuristics rather than rationale to select a course of action. Heuristics is just a more impressive word than "gut", but represents the same idea. Heuristics are our instincts, our intuition. Heuristics are "rules of thumb" which come from both experience and analysis of data. Once obtained, we draw on heuristics or conclusions we have come to through both observable and unobservable "data" (knowledge).

For example, I worked for an executive for 17 years who was smart and analytical. He had an MBA from North Carolina and was considered one of the stars in the carbonated soft drink industry. He would demand that others have a " buttoned up", rational argument for their suggestions, derived from empirical analysis of data. Yet, he was very comfortable using heuristics to make his own decisions. He was comfortable relying on faith for business decisions, regardless of their importance to the company's success.

Isn't this the way many of us are in other matters of life. In interpersonal relationships we want others to prove their love for us. In theology skeptics need to prove that God exists and that we need Jesus to satisfy His wrath. Yet, we are comfortable using our own intuition and instinct, our heuristics, as the evidence we can trust for our own actions.

We may defend the evidence we trust for how we think, feel and act. BUT, we cannot argue that we all "walk in heuristics." No one ever has a thought, feeling or an action that is not informed by a sense of certainty from evidence we cannot see. No one is exempt from "walking in faith." All of our disagreement is in what we trust, or truth about the object of our faith. It is what we have conclusive evidence in that we cannot see that compels us to choose to be vulnerable to it.

It's how we TRUST ....

Lessons of our "lying eyes"

I have never been one who can remember lines from movies. However, one line from the TV series Dallas has always stuck with me. Sue Ellen has just caught JR in a compromising situation and is in the midst of scolding him when he turns to her and says, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes."

Of course JR was known to be quite adept at deception for his own purposes and was surely guilty of whatever Sue Ellen was accusing him of. However, this line has always stuck with me because it captures the essence of the question of faith.

Have you ever had a spat with someone you love and you know loves you. Yet, in times of silence when you are apart, your mind can run in all directions of accusation. You let the visible evidences of the other person's actions control your thoughts and sometimes your actions. You wonder if you can trust them. The other person yearns to have you focus on their heart, not what your eyes tell you. In a sense they are challenging you in the same way, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes."

We see this theme all the time in chic flicks, especially Hallmark movies. It is faith in the person's heart that we often have to rely on in relationships. We find that what we see in what others do can easily deceive us, lead us to think things about the person and their love for us that is not consistent with what we know about their heart. Conclusive evidence that we cannot observe about the love someone has for us is the faith in that person's love.

Faith is not trusting, faith is the evidence we cannot see that we trust. 

We have to determine in our own heart that the evidence is true and we can depend on it, even when we can't see it. As I have written many times, trust is a willful vulnerability, giving control over to something we believe is in our best interest. What we trust is our willful act.

This happens in our lives all the time, in many ways. We ultimately must trust evidence that we cannot see as conclusive to what is true. It is a myth that we do not walk in faith. We all do. The question is not WHETHER we walk in faith, but in what do we have faith. What evidence that we cannot see do we trust for our thoughts, feelings and actions?

With respect to Christians we read that our faith is a gift. and this is true. God gave us conclusive evidence of HIS unending, unmerited favor in Jesus. He provides the faith, we provide the trust. Its like God is asking us every moment as we turn our affections to other objects that are meant to deceive us, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Misery and faith

"Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment."
#CSLewis

Nobody wants to be annoyed by life. So what makes us miserable? What keeps us off track from being what we want to be? Many experts believe that uncertainty keeps us anxious, fearful, and unsettled. Maybe we can have moments that we feel good, but even in those, we worry when it will end.


If uncertainty is the force that stands in our way of happiness, so that we can be the benevolent souls we desire, what produces uncertainty? Obviously, the future is uncertain in that it hasn't happened yet. This is where the science of probabilities comes in. This is mankind's attempt at making the uncertainties of the future less uncertain. If the likelihood of having cancer is 10%, then we are less worried than if it is determined to be 50%.

However, science is just a way of finding evidence that something is true. We have to trust the evidence in order to relieve any of our misery about what is true. We have grown accustomed to trusting how science can process observable evidence and produce conclusions that we rely on. Society has progressively depended on science in this way, but we still have misery and some may say, lots of it.

We have experiences that physical evidence used for truth is often flawed. Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve Bank, admitted before Congress that his conclusions about economics that led to the financial crisis in 2008 were wrong. See, in all science there are assumptions the scientists must make that they cannot prove. These assumptions are what faith is. A good working definition of faith is "conclusive evidence that we cannot observe." The fact is that all of life, regardless of how much science we have, is subject to faith. We must ultimately draw conclusions on what we cannot see, touch, hear, smell or taste. All of our thoughts and feelings depend on what we trust to be true. With regards to parents, heartthrobs and spouses, "do you really love me?" is a cry of our heart. We must trust something to be real in order to choose the best path for our actions.

The question then becomes "what is the object of our faith?" The target of our faith is what determines outcomes of our actions, not the quantity or sincerity of our faith. We can fail to trust evidence that is real and be miserable. OR we can trust something that exists. but is not real and be miserable. You see, misery is a function of the object of our faith.

Dr Loyd-Jones once spoke of the "misery of many Christians." Why would Christians have misery when they have faith in Jesus Christ. Paul says "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ is to all who believe." If faith makes us right with God, what is our problem?

I think it is because Christians have not been taught sufficiently about faith. Often we are led to think that faith is "belief". If that is so, why does Paul use "faith" and "believe" in this statement on justification? "Believe" means to trust, to let go control and act on the supposition we accept as true. Faith is not the trust, faith is the evidence that leads us to trust. But it is evidence we cannot observe. Instead of relying on faith in Jesus Christ, which is the conclusive evidence we are made righteous by the redemptive work of the Cross, we instinctively fall back on seeking other evidence we are justified. The problem is that our natural instrument for justice is social exchange, reciprocity with our circumstances. While we have head knowledge of Christian theology, we have human nature faith. We trust more in what we can or have done to be righteous that we do the conclusive evidence of Jesus.

Tim Keller defines faith as the "instrument", not the cause of our justification. The problem we have is that we are not comfortable using that instrument. Its a tool that does not "fit our hands" very well. Only with Spiritual eyes open to the evidence of the Cross can faith be operative on how we think, feel and act. We must think hard and long about faith AS EVIDENCE. We must become as comfortable with faith as we are with scientific inquiry. We must see faith as 100% probability we are OK with God, not just for a few moments, but for all of eternity. This is why Paul also tells us to rely on what is invisible and eternal, not visible and temporary.

Only then will we not have the uncertainty that produces misery, and as CS Lewis reminds us, we can forever be benevolent.

That's worth some pondering ......      

exist = real?

You may not ever think about this question, "is a chair real?" You may even think its a waste of time to even ask the question. What difference does it make? Isn't it just a matter of semantics? Well, we live at a time when a white woman imagines she is black and a man can just imagine he is a woman. Does that matter?

Let me ask you to ponder this for a minute. Remember, pondering is just reflecting without the need to draw a conclusion. Pondering is a from of reflection.

A common understanding of existence is that something exists if it has a form or state of being. Certainly a chair exist. Some people believe that only what we can observe through our physical senses exist and everything else is imagined or just has an existence in our mind and emotions. So objects like love of a parent or child may have observable behaviors associated with it, but love itself is just an abstract idea that really does not exist. In this case, what is real is physical and finite. If one benefit of something being real is that we can trust it and depend on it in our lives, then for something to be real to be physical means it is temporary and cannot be trusted but for a period of time.

Let me suggest that for something to be real, it must be permanent, or as Plato said 2500 years ago, an object that is real is eternal. The reason for this view of reality is that for something to be real it must not be bounded by time and space. In mathematics we call the infinite set of numbers the "real numbers." Something that is finite has a limited life, so we would not want to invest our affection in something that would end. We may enjoy and benefit from from visible objects that exist, like the chair, but we would not want to depend on it as real because it will at some point end or not be present.

Whether we think about it this way or not, most people long for permanence. We often infer this notion of permanent when we say, "do you really love me?" We want to know if it is "forever" or is there something that can cause it to end or a place it is not true. We seem to use the notion of forever to designate that we do not want to throw our whole self at something that we cannot depend on always being there. Thus, the notion of real has a special type of existence we instinctively require for our trust.

Of course, if someone believes life is finite and nothing abstract exists, then reality cannot be eternal. In this case what is real is generally considered anything that exist, is observable and is true or authentic (not fake). The issue of reality occurs when you believe life is infinite and there are unobservable objects that exist. So, if we have visible and invisible objects that exist, we must decide which is real? There are two schools of thought, philosophy and theology.

Philosophy claims that the visible object is real and that the invisible or abstract is only real if it maps identically to some visible object. Philosophies differ by how they believe the mapping of invisible onto visible is made. Theology is just the opposite. Here the invisible is eternal and real and that visible objects, which are temporary, point to or represent the invisible. Objects we can observe resemble what is real, but are not themselves real. they can be true (or fake) if they correctly reflect (or not) the invisible reality.

While you may no think about this often or at all, your core assumptions about "exist = real" influences almost all of how you think, feel, and act. It is a major core assumption upon which all of 'self" responds to in various circumstances. This is often how dissonance occurs. We reflect conscious 'self" to please what others see about us, but we long in our core for something else, we ask ourselves. "really?"

When faced with circumstances, both good and bad, whether you want to or not, whether you even can or not, you need to ponder if what you consider exists is in fact, real.

Note to Christian: How do the following Scriptures influence how you think, feel and act in the moments of your life?
   2 Corinthians 4 & 5
   John 17: 3
   Ephesians 2: 6

Is "sitting with God in the Heavenly places in Christ Jesus" more real to us than sitting in a chair? The answer is not trivial .....

maybe it is just the way it works

For now we have a Supreme Court that has only 8 justices instead of the 9 it is designed to have. As cases come before the court, most of the attention has been on what happens as a result of a 4-4 split vote. The outcome of a specific court action is what is anticipated in controversial or important precedent setting decisions. But maybe there is a bigger issue here. Maybe the specific decision on a case is not what ultimately matters because there is something more significant going on that we may not see at first glance. I have written often about perception and "its not what we see, but what we see it is" (http://profoncall.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-is-it-you-see.html).

I think the 4-4 court is a diversion from the real issue. Are the splits because the two sides consistently see the Constitution differently or because 4 justices, we call the liberal ones, see the Court's role differently from the Constitution. In other words, for these four justices have the relative truths of Social Justice replaced the absolute truths of The US Constitution?  The upcoming vote on the appeal from a lower Texas court on The President overstepping his Constitutional role will be a 4-4- split and therefore the outcome will be OK. BUT if this is what we see is important, then we have missed the real issue. The lower court's action is stopping The President from ignoring and altering immigration laws because he doesn't like them. This is not about immigration. The fact that 4 sitting justices would so blatantly ignore the Constitution's Articles setting up separation of power for political preference is way more scary than immigration and even the upcoming Presidential election. When the Supreme Court walks away from its designed role, it becomes a counterfeit court. It becomes its own creation. BTW, where did the highest court ever get the name "Supreme" in the first place?

                                          Is this the way it works? 

People establish institutions and call them Supreme? Is not everything that exists not under the Sovereign power of Him who is Supreme? If so, what are we to think about all of this hulla-ballu going on around us? What is really real? How does this all work? Who is the real Supreme Court that will never act against its designed purpose?

We should all spend some time pondering these questions. But it is easy to get distracted by what is right before our eyes, making our broken moments feel better. If we believe God is the real Supreme Court, then we probably should ponder a bit what He says about the way it works.

First, He says that we should focus on what is eternal and invisible, not what is temporary and observable to our physical senses. Then He says that what is eternal is real and what is observable allows us to understand and enjoy what is real while we are left in our current finite state. But, all of creation yearns for their final state where we experience what is real without having to go through models or pictures that represent what is real.

For instance, God told us that we have priests that can mediate our time with Him and sacrifices that we can offer to appease Him. But these are examples of what is the real mediator and appeasement, Jesus. There are seasons of the year where nature cycles between life and death and back to life again. These cycles point to the resurrection power of God. Nature also yearns for the time that it no longer has to continue these cycles, but can enjoy life without death forever.  

We fuss over how culture has destroyed marriage. Our society has not destroyed marriage, but has warped what God intended as a pointer to how people should relate to Him. Homosexual marriage is only one way man has used Social Exchange as a basis for marriage. Jesus tells us in The Sermon on the Mount that heterosexual desires distort God's intent for marriage also in many ways. God tells us that reality is an intimate relationship with Him through His Son Jesus. The commitment and trust that we can experience through the institution of marriage is not the real thing, but it points us to what is real in our relationship with Jesus. While no marriage is perfect, a Godly marriage is one where commitment is sourced in willful affection, not duty or necessity, and trust is based in a vulnerability that produces intimacy. When we can have this in human marriage, we get a glimpse of what its like to know God. Being single is not a distortion of marriage but in some ways being single bypasses having to experience this intimacy and commitment through another person and directly seek it with Jesus.

The problem we should have with the way man has distorted God's design for marriage is like the problem we should have with the way the 4 justices have distorted the design of our government as established in the Constitution.

What happens is man claims truth is relative and creates counterfeits of what is real by establishing false models or pictures of what is real. Man does this so that he/she can become the designer, the creator. Man's nature is to twist around the way things really work away from the Supreme design for his/her own interest.

Look for it, it is everywhere, not just around us but in our own lives. Where do we look at the pointer as being the real thing? In what ways do we rely on counterfeit pointers so that we can fool ourselves into thinking that our self serving desires are what is real? However, we do not have to settle for the counterfeit models, because we can have the real thing, even now.

Maybe this is deep to fully grasp, but not too deep to ponder, I plant my grass seed in th Fall so that the roots of the grass can grow deep during the cool off season. Then when the heat comes, the grass can remain strong by reaching deep for its nourishment. Our risk is not that understanding what is real is too deep, but that we get caught up in the temporal and visible so that we do not consider what is real.... and when the heat comes, we do not have deep roots for our nourishment.

"what difference does it make"

As I have been working to develop a transformational learning experience in which someone can clarify and challenge their core assumptions, I get push back that people really don't want to think about things like that, it makes them too uncomfortable. Or maybe that exploring core assumptions and getting them aligned with truth really doesn;t matter to having a happy life. Taking "selfies" work so much better.

I understand that most people tend to focus on short term issues as they become challenges in their life, like making good grades, getting the right job, finding a sweetheart to love and/or marry, keeping healthy, and so forth. However, if we are off base in what causes us to think, feel and act the way we do, we are likely to make choices that do not result in getting where we want to go. Its like going on a trip without a compass or a map. Or taking a "selfie" to only find out how silly we look. We may have some fun along the way, but who knows where we end up.

We wonder why our country doesn't work well. Or the company we work for, OR our family. Why do people do what they do? think like they do? make the choices they make?

“Core assumptions” are what you believe, but you cannot prove, and do not debate, but use to prove everything else you believe." 

   

You rarely know where your core assumptions come from. They make up your identity, which comes in 3 forms. Your social identity is formed by association with various communities, where you live and work. Their cultures have heavy influences on you that you usually do not know is happening. Your personal identity comes from what makes you unique, like your personality and abilities. Your natural identity is basically your nature, which is either carnal or Spiritual. Together, your identity "forces" your sense-making. Your identities compel you to think, feel, and act a certain way. You think you are free, but you are not. You are not free because you are constrained by biases and filters and values that you never even know you have. It is why people disagree, even though they are both quite logical. 

Here are a few evidences of this and why it matters.

Scientists cannot provide inquiry with integrity because of political, economic, and religious biases

Conservatives can call for smaller govt on economic grounds but vote for more govt because of fairness bias (neo-conservatives)

people stand on their "rights" because of the way culture has distorted the concept of "deserves"

tolerance is a misguided "virtue" against bigotry because stereotyping bias contamintaes tolerance

people judge others to be judgmental because they cannot escape attribution bias (the human tendency to blame others)

faith is considered weak because the culture assumes only what is observable exists and anything that exists is real

when someone believes all knowledge is truth, science becomes the god

when happiness comes from what we do to get our circumstances "right" (like we want them), we have idols that are impotent

If we are talking to Christian institutions, then we can ask questions like

how can a Christian understand what God is saying in the parables if they are biased to see everything thru lenses of reward/punishment?

how can a Christian grasp faith if something has to be observable to be real?

how can a Christian see that grace is sufficient if they must earn happiness?

how can a Christina understand the story of Jesus washing feet if their idea of obligation is duty?

how can a Christian understand "in Christ you are a new creation, all things have passed" if they do not understand their old creation?

These are just a few of many conclusions we come to about life's issues and challenges that are controlled by our core assumptions. You may think core assumptions do not matter, well, then you are fine to be controlled by forces that work against you and you do not even know it. 

At least you should ponder this a bit ......

"ohhhh, that's too deep"

I have made a number of trips to Amsterdam since my son has lived there. Each time we land and deplane, we immediately hear the words, "mind your step." This is a warning from the moving sidewalk to pay attention to where you are going.

I have to confess, one of the most frustrating things for me is to try and discuss (explain) a concept or word that is very common and fundamental for folks, but get push back from them saying, "ohhh, that's too deep." It has fascinated me for some time, especially as I began teaching college students. I found it compelling, but daunting to present very normal, everyday concepts to them, such as attitude and motivation, but do so in a way that they get the full understanding and not just a surface perspective that lacked any punch in their life. I often have felt that I must sound like that rote, mechanical voice, lost in the noise of life's corridors, saying "mind your step."

Well, I am now "deep" into writing script on a course where I must cover "deep" concepts like knowledge, truth and faith, in a way that a 15 year old can understand and apply them to make their life work better, maybe even affect their eternal journey.

Today I am working on the words "exist" and "real". So I ask, "what do these words mean?" "can something exist and not be real?" and vice versa. Certainly these are words that everybody uses all the time. They happen to be words whose meaning form some part of everybody's core assumptions. The problem with something being a core assumption is that it is something we believe "deeply", but never examine it and never have to "prove" it true, but we use it to "prove" everything else.

Is that too deep? I feel someone saying "mind your step!"

Let me ask you about these two words in this way. Look at the following two statements. Then simply select the option that you think best completes the statement for you. You may think more than one applies, but you can only pick one, so select the one you think best represents what you believe.

An object "exists" if it
A. can be observed by any of the 5 physical senses
B. participates in someone’s thoughts
C. has a certain form or state of being
D. presently occupies a known place in the world

An object is "real" if
A. it is eternal
B. it can be observed by any of the 5 physical senses
C. it is genuine, not a representation
D. someone perceives it exists

Lets examine what the different answers may mean to how you think, feel, and act in many areas of your life. First, you note I have offered more than one option for each. It is safe to assume that out of 10 people someone would pick each option. Certainly, people believe differently about these two common words. Second, some answers suggest that the two words may actually mean the same thing. If you select A and B, you have obviously claimed the two words are identical. Third, some answers for one would suggest certain answers on the other would not be possible. Let's look at a few like this.  

If you answer A for the first, then anything that exist must be observable in some way. This would likely exclude possibilities for A, C and D in the statement on what is real. (A) Eternity suggests that anything that exists which dies cannot be real. Similarly answer (C) for "reality" suggests that anything that exists that is a copy of something or an illusion or myth cannot be real. (D) for the second statement suggests that reality doesn't have to be observable, just be thought to exist by someone.

We could spend a lot of time comparing what you believe "exist" and 'real" mean, but let me focus on this point. Thousands of years ago, before culture worked on redefining these terms, "exist" meant "has a certain form or state of being" (C) and "real" meant "eternal" (A). If this is true about these words, then something can exist and not be real. Something can be genuine, but temporary or finite and therefore not be real. and so forth .... For instance, an architect builds a model of a hospital before it is built. This allows people to see something that they otherwise could not see until later. The model exists but it is not the "real" hospital. Look at a $1 bill. Is it real money? It certainly exists but it is not the money. Money is a promissory note backed by government that gives the $1 bill its value. The dollar bill represents or points to the money. This idea of things exist to point to or represent something real introduces the opportunity for counterfeit. Something counterfeit exists but points to or represents something that is not "real".

Why does this matter? First, many Christian apologists over the years have tried to argue that "God exists" against arguments of atheists that "God does not exist." While all the attention is on God, the problem resides in a disagreement on what "exist" means. There needs to be an agreement on "exist" before there is an attempt to agree on existence of God. Second, if we misstep on what "real" means, we can struggle with many of life's circumstances. If the original idea of real is correct, that "real" means "eternal", then what do we do with everything that exists that is observable and temporary? Is marriage real? Is the body real? Is wealth real? Plus, we need to be aware of the risks of counterfeits of what is real, that is, things that exists that do not point to something that is eternal.

Paul said look on the invisible and eternal, not on the visible and temporary. Is this what he was trying to tell us? Is that too deep? Jesus constantly told parables about the Kingdom, He performed miracles as signs of who He is. Marriage is used to describe the relationship the church has with Christ. Is marriage one of those signs or reflections of what is real? Is that why the design of marriage must stay as the Architect wished? Otherwise a distortion in marriage becomes a counterfeit of what is real.

What we consider real and what we see as pointers, signs, reflections and such of what is real establishes a set of core assumptions that informs everything we feel, think and do. Is our issue that this is too deep and so we are stuck to live beneath our privilege of knowing what is real? OR is our issue that our human nature and our culture have dug holes that we step into, creating core assumptions that rob us of what is real by enticing us to chase and grab hold of the replicas or models of what is real.

If we respond too often with "oh, that is too deep", we may miss the warning to "mind your step."

Certainly worth pondering ....