FB = blog fodder

Social media is definitely the craze, not just of millennials, but even Xer's and Boomers, who have a desire to connect with friends and family. One of the fascinating outcomes of Facebook, as a leading social media outlet, is how people express their ideas by borrowing quips from what others are saying. This provides a nice way for people to express their own thoughts in clever ways.

My recent series of blogs have been focusing on the priority of exploring how core assumptions influence people's thoughts, feelings and actions without them ever really knowing it. Core assumptions are stealth, but powerful sense-making foundations of our lives. I have especially focused on the differences in core assumptions that establish how people determine knowledge, truth, faith, and reality. Here are a couple of posts, just today, that make great examples of how Facebook is a "gold mine" for transmitting core assumptions.

Whether you like it or not, your FB posts make you a "carrier of core assumptions." 

People are very drawn to a video of Robin Williams answering the question "If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the pearly gates?" Robin Williams was a popular, funny guy. All kinds of people followed him because of his unique talent as a comedian. When we like someone quite a lot, we tend to give him/her credit for thoughts and ideas that are beyond their expertise. However, in doing so, we tend to embrace or endorse core assumptions that we may not really adhere to if we thought about it more.

Back to the question about Heaven. Robin William's answers were like, "I would want God to have a sense of humor too" and he then illustrates his ideas of Heaven with a few jokes. If we accept what he said, we are basically believing that a person's inferences about an object is what establishes truth about the object. R William's made heaven in his own image, as that of a comedian who used humor to defuse the pain in his life. This aligns with my last blog on core assumptions. One assumption on reality is that truth about an object is based on the quality of the inference an observer makes about the object. This is in contrast that truth about an object is determined by the originator of the object, not the observer.

Wouldn't it have been quite impressive if William's core assumption about existence and truth were the second one. Imagine your excitement about his answer had he said, "the truth about Heaven is best known by the originator of Heaven, so let's ask God how He describes it"? How you responded emotionally to his answer may tell you something about your own core assumptions, not about Heaven, but about truth. Regardless of intention, sharing the video on FB is being a "carrier of core assumptions."

A very dear friend of mine posted this on FB as a share from Purple Clover, the popular source of platitudes on truth. What are the core assumptions associated with believing this? Of course there are assumptions on change, but there is something more here, something more subtle. Actually, there is a core assumption about people that I do not even believe my friend would agree with. However, the cute inference about change is appealing and therefore shared. But what is the effect of the implied assumption about people?

You may agree with me or not, and that is certainly your choice, but it seems to imply that people are basically good and their challenge to living the best life is stripping away all the stuff they have accumulated that stands in their way. It seems to be saying, "just get back to your true self." This is an assumption coming from humanism, not Scripture. We are told in numerous places that in Christ we are a new creation, the old has passed. We are admonished to walk in the newness of life. We are shown the contrast between walking in the flesh and walking in the Spirit. We are told that in our human nature, we are alive to sin and dead to righteousness. 

If we are a Christian, would finding this platitude appealing settle our mind and emotions on the wrong core assumption? Would believing that we are basically good eliminate the need for a Savior? Of course, it may mean to a Christian that we now have a "true self" that has been transformed by God and our identity is now in Christ. In this case the platitude would be encouraging us to quit living beneath the privilege we now have in our new nature.

Sharing platitudes that make people feel good may in fact be making us a "carrier of deceptive core assumptions."  

 
It is a social media caution certainly worth pondering ......

I KNOW I have a ticket to the concert

There are two distinctly different core assumptions about knowledge and truth. One possibility is that information I have about an object is not knowledge about the object unless the knowledge is valid and represents what is true about the object. The second option is that the object itself is true or not regardless of the knowledge (amount and "validity") I have about the object. You may think at first glance that this distinction is trivial and not worth much thought. YET, the impact of which of the two core assumptions you embrace has a profound impact on how you think, feel and act. It is a core assumption that comes b4Worldview. It is why I have spent so much time thinking and blogging about this topic.

The first option is held by most mainstream philosophers. The focus for this core assumption is on the validity of the "argument" about the object. Truth about an object is dependent on how smart or capable the arguer is in convincing others the knowledge as true. While inference is necessary for all judgments about an object, there is no single judge for what makes one inference better than another. So two arguers often disagree on whether the knowledge is valid or not. This forms the basis for relativism and practical decision making. Any argument about he truth of an object is limited to a finite set of observable evidence. While abstract or non-material evidence is sometimes acknowledged and found interesting, anyone who must rely on or trust unobservable evidence (faith) is considered ignorant and weak by others with this core assumption of knowledge and truth.

The second core assumption option is held by anyone who believes foremost that all objects have an originator, someone who designed and built the object. Truth then is established as a set of attributes of the object by the one who is the authority of the object,  In other words, there is an authority that is responsible for the object's existence. For us to know what is true about the object involves inference, but the inference is focused on evidence that the originator is trustworthy.  This requires examining both physical and relational (faith) evidence to reach the conclusion that we know the originator of the object well enough to trust the knowledge about the object we are given. The knowledge of the originator trumps the knowledge about the object as the basis for truth about the object.

Let's look at an example from each core assumption.

Suppose we obtain a ticket to a concert. In the first option for core assumption, we do not know we have a ticket to the concert unless or until we validate it is not a false ticket. We certainly look at the physical evidence, such as does it show the right date, ticket price, venue of the concert. This tells us we didn't make a mistake and purchase the wrong ticket. BUT, is it a fake or counterfeit ticket. What physical evidence do we have? If we bought it from what we believe to be a legitimate ticket agent, then we may believe that it is not a fake. Therefore, we in fact DO have knowledge that we have a ticket to the concert. Notice our inference focuses on attributes of the ticket, but includes more then physical evidence. We must also trust that the ticket agent is trustworthy. So, while those who have this core assumption may "feel like" faith is not part of their inference, relational evidence is just as important as the physical evidence of the ticket in trusting the ticket is true. However, we still could get to the concert and find that it is a counterfeit and not be allowed in. There is always risk that our knowledge is not true  regardless of how valid our inference is that the knowledge is true.

In the second option for core assumption we should validate the physical evidence as a minimum to make sure we did not make a mistake. However, getting to know the originator of the ticket, not who gave it to us or who we bought it from, is what establishes the evidence that the ticket is not a counterfeit. The ticket is either authentic and a true ticket to the concert or it is not. Only the originator of the ticket knows for sure. So our trust in the validity of the ticket may depend on the knowledge we have inferred about the ticket. However, the truth about the ticket does not depend on our knowledge, but the attributes of the ticket as determined by its creator.

Why does it matter which core assumption you have about knowledge and truth?

The danger or risk in option one is that we can easily confuse the relationship between knowledge and truth. If we think information is not knowledge unless it passes a "test" made by an observer of the object, then we eventually reverse the order of what influences what. Instead knowledge being tested against truth, we tend to believe that truth about an object is the knowledge that the observer has inferred about the object. This is the source of relative truth, which is subject to all the flaws of human bias and bounded rationality that encapsulates human inference.

The danger or risk of option two core assumption is that we trust an originator that is not trustworthy. Resolving the trustworthiness of someone is a very different heuristic than resolving the trustworthiness of our own rational argument - where we honor physical evidence and discount faith. Knowing evidence about the originator relies heavily on relational evidence that is not physical in nature, such as love, character, and testimonies of others. Inference is required, but the evidence we trust is very different. Thus, we can have knowledge of an object that is not true, but the object is still true. Our rational process is one in which we seek a relationship with the originator and rely on what he/she says about the object as our basis for truth. This is what absolute truth means.

Do you find it interesting that it is easy for people to accept the assumption that every material, visible object has an originator who knows the most about the object's true attributes, but struggle to accept the assumption that every abstract or non-material object does also? 

If you would like to move to the second option for core assumptions about knowledge and truth, try this - when you are faced with what is true about an object - so your thoughts, feelings and actions align with truth - ask this, "who is the originator of the object?" Pondering the question may offer you insights you have never had.

One interesting issue arises in this discussion that is worth noting. Some people "know in their heart" that truth must be absolute and not dependent on observers arguments about an object. However, they can struggle with knowing who the originator is and knowing him/her well enough to trust them. So, in these cases people want to know and find what is true about an argument without trusting themselves, but they are swayed by an appeal of core assumption option one where faith is equated with ignorance and weakness. This tension leaves them with dissonance in what they feel and what they think.

The core assumption each of us believe is both beneath a lot of our consciousness and a vital contributor to success in life. This is one of the most fascinating aspect of humanity that any of us could ever examine and probe. It is not TRIVIAL and is worth pondering .....

Is knowledge truth?

As those of you that know me are aware I have been trying to explore core assumptions that are carnal minded vs spirit minded and therefore constrain the Christians experience of God's privileges and provisions and interfere with a seeker's opportunity to know and trust God. Through a series of discussions with Philosophers and reading articles by Philosophers, I boil the core assumption issue to a couple of presuppositions that deal mainly with knowledge and truth. First I will summarize these and for those who get headaches when blogs get too deep, you can stop at that point and just accept or reject the ideas presented. For those who wish to dig deeper into the reasons I have reached these conclusions, I have provided more detail.
Summary:
1. Mainstream philosophy (in the Aristotle tradition) sees truth as the knowledge about an object that has withstood the test of reason (validated). The emphasis in philosophy is using head knowledge (eido) as evidence with little or no appreciation for heart knowledge (gnosis). The Bible teaches that truth is an attribute of the object independent of anyone's arguments about the object. Knowledge (both head and heart) is the outcome of awareness of an object's characteristics and is either valid or not based on whether the characteristic belongs to the set of characteristics of the object.
2. Mainstream philosophy believes that there is no way to determine whose arguments are right or best beyond human reason from observable data. For those philosophers who acknowledge objective truth, they really do not know how to explain where it comes from. Core assumption of the Kingdom mind is that the determinant of the object's true attributes is the one who originates the object and determines the set of characteristics that belong to the object. That is, the author of a story determines the truth about the characters and the plots and the outcome, not the reader's reasoning. If you want to know what is true about God's Kingdom, ask God who is the architect of His Kingdom.
3. Mainstream philosophy believes that having to rely on presuppositions that cannot be proven (faith) is aligned with "ignorance". The core assumption of the Kingdom mind is that reliable evidence that cannot be observed (faith) is the basis for inferences about the object that lead one to trust the object as true.

My intent is not to prove me right and mainstream philosophy wrong. If that were possible then it would have happened long ago by very smart people. I am simply trying to draw a contrast between two sets of core assumptions, one which I believe (and some philosophers confess) lead to a futile hope in human reasoning and the other a hope in God and His promises. You may read further into the details if you like or just review the points above and ponder these three challenges to core assumptions that may lead to unlocking for you the joy, purpose, freedom, hope, esteem and belonging the human heart yearns for.

Details.  
I have found it interesting in my discussion with Philosophers (whether Christian or not) that mainstream philosophy makes basically no distinction between knowledge and truth. From what I can gather Philosophy claims that something known is not knowledge until it is validated as truth. This results in truth depending on the "arguments" used to determine if the knowledge we have about an object is true, rather than claiming the object itself is either true or not. This is a very important core assumption that shapes how we make sense of objects when the evidence gets very complicated.

For instance, for visible objects, like a chair, we define it as an object based on some finite set of characteristics. A chair is an object that has legs, a seat, and a back. People must agree, however, whether a chair must also have arms or not. Some people may claim it doesn't have to have a back to be a chair, while others would say that an object with legs that you sit on without a back is a stool and not a chair. So, the definition of a chair is really a SET of characteristics that someone has determined that will make the object truly a chair. Philosophers would say that awareness of a characteristic of an object is not knowledge unless it is true, which means it is included in the set of characteristics of the chair.

There are two issues that are more than trivial.
1) there really is an infinite set of characteristics about a chair that can be identified, but we tend to stop with a finite number that is practically useful in seeing that an object with certain characteristics is in fact truly a chair. This is sufficient for an observable object, but is more of a problem for an abstract or unobservable object. In the case of an observable object, there is little, or any, need for evidence that we cannot experience with our physical senses. But for an unobservable object, we must rely on unobservable evidence as knowledge of members of the set of characteristics of the object. This requires a stronger use of heart knowledge (gnosis) than what we can obtain thru physical examination of the object. For example, an abstract object like love requires relational experience not just behavioral observation to know it is true love.
2) who ultimately determines the characteristics of a chair? Is there a designer or authority that sits beyond people's awareness that establishes the set of characteristics of the chair? Or, are the characteristics of an object that make it a chair just have to pass some criteria of inference to be included as a member of the set of characteristics of a chair? In the later case there is not an objective or single set that defines a chair, but many different sets in which each element is true knowledge of the chair if it fits a "valid" inference about what makes an object a chair. In this case there are many truths about a chair.

I tend to think this view of mainstream Philosophy is prevalent in our culture and contributes to the diversions to people seeing and comprehending truths of God's Kingdom. It is not good practice to claim error in something unless you can offer an alternative that deals with the error. So here goes ....

I believe that knowledge is an awareness of some characteristic of an object. Its the object that is true or false, not inference about the knowledge that is the focus of truth. Knowledge is only valid if it fits the characteristics of an object (is an element of the set of characteristics). For example, if I am aware of the legs of a chair, I have some valid knowledge of the chair, but not complete knowledge of the chair. I may also know (have an awareness of)  the object's color and size, but these forms of knowledge are not included in the set of characteristics of the chair, so they do not figure in the judgments I may make about this knowledge as belonging to the chair. Further, an awareness of the person sitting in the chair is not valid knowledge of the chair. I also believe an object has one set of characteristics that make it truly that object. The object is either truly a chair or not based on the set of characteristics of the object determined by the one who originated the object by defining the rules for its elements. If there is a set with different characteristics, then it is a different object.

Since I have been using the notion of "sets", let me use mathematics to illustrate my point here. Don;t panic. Its really very simple so don't let the optics distract you form the point, but help you more clearly understand the point.

You are probably familiar with the set of numbers where the numerator is 1 and the denominator is a whole number where each subsequent denominator is 1 more than the previous one. This is an infinite set in that you cannot ever count the number of elements. However, every awareness of a number is not characteristic of the set because it does not fit the rules for being a member. For example, I can show someone the number 2 and claim it is a member of set S. The number 2 becomes knowledge of a number for the other person, but it is not knowledge of the set S. This is like having knowledge of the person sitting in the chair, but it is not knowledge of the chair.

Now, what is true about the set S. First, knowledge (elements) of S is infinite. Second, S converges or has a greatest lower bound of 0. So, while S is infinite, every possible number does not belong to S. For an element to be in S, it must fit the rule of "numerator is 1 and denominator is a positive whole number." Third, the set S was established by some authority independent of people's idea and arguments of what should be an element of S.

These core assumptions about knowledge and truth are necessary to correctly grasp what God is saying about His Kingdom. He gives us in His Word the characteristics of His Kingdom (elements of the set). They are infinite, but they converge to Jesus ("I am the truth"). There exists an infinite number of objects we can know that do not belong in His Kingdom set, such as evil, because they do not fit the "rules" of the set. God's Kingdom is true because it is His design. He determines the characteristics of the elements in the set, not human reasoning. 

Basically, every human will operate under one of the two core assumptions, some derivation of mainstream philosophy (carnal mind) or the core assumptions of  the Kingdom mind. One other reason I an confident in this distinction is that the Aristotle tradition is anchored in Social Exchange. I have relentlessly defended this model of thinking as the heart of the carnal mind (human nature). The obsession with balance, proportion, equilibrium, and justice (Aristotle's premise) is what wars against receiving the free, unmerited gift of Grace.

I know this is a lot, but you have all the time to ponder this. It has to be more important than the hours spent watching Downton Abbey ,,,,,, just saying ....  

Is piling on good?

Is piling on good? Well, if we are adding to our knowledge by reading more books, maybe so. When we order a salad we seem to have the option of adding on a meat of our choice. I think this add on is to make a better meal. Heavy eaters really pile on the food when they go through a buffet as if it brings them more pleasure. There seems to be many ways that "piling on" or adding more to something can make it better.

But then again, in football a team can get penalized severely for piling on after the whistle blows. So, maybe it is not absolutely true that piling on always is good. Oh wait, in previous blogs we discussed that "good" may have multiple meanings. One meaning of "good" is that circumstances become more favorable to us. The other meaning is that the experience, purpose, and expertise of the author or builder is what makes an object "good". If we apply the later meaning of "good", are there ever any situations where adding on to what the architect or author decided was right is "good"?

Ok, now to my point. There are 3 areas in Christian theology that I believe the stealth influence of carnality has influenced even the best scholars and preachers to "add on" to God's view as revealed in His word. These three are (1) progressive sanctification, (2) faith, and (3) suffering. I will briefly defend my thesis that piling on occurs on these topics because the core assumptions of the carnal mind compel us to add to what God has said. But mainly, in my arguments here, adding on is not "good" because it alters the architect's or author's (in this case, God's) intent.

First, everyone agrees that "sanctification" is God's willful and grace filled action to set us apart for His purposes. However, for some reason I have yet to determine, the Reformed tradition has adopted an add-on of progressing toward a sin-less righteousness as a part of sanctification. I say it is an add-on first because they use the word "and" to introduce this progression. It seems that it is faithfulness to the sanctifying act of God on our behalf that testifies of the glory of a living God to a dying world, not anyone's approach to living righteously. This add on that sanctification is a function of time or our behavior fits the carnal disposition of obligation and duty and man's need to contribute to God's finished work on the Cross. It seems to me that when an orphan is adopted, it is a binary action, it occurred or it didn't. He/she belongs to the father. Although the orphan would benefit more if he/she trusted and appropriated the adoption, the adopted child is no more or less adopted. There is no progression of adoption that is a function of time or anything the adopted child does.

Of course we have God saying that He "works in us both to will and do for His good pleasure" and that "He who began a good work in me will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ." These are promises God makes because He sanctified us. Feeling that we are to live day by day to progressively become more Holy runs the risk that we feel guilty or in despair over our "progression". Knowing we already have all the righteousness we will ever have when we receive Christ and that God will be ever present to work in and thru us in many ways for His Glory produces freedom and hope.

Second, the word for faith is "pitsis". This term refers to reliable evidence that an object is true, but it is evidence that we cannot prove. Scripture constantly refers to faith as separate from our trusting in that evidence. Trust is a willful vulnerability. Faith is reliable evidence, but we must make our self vulnerable to it to receive the power of its truth. Faith is given to us, we supply the trust. When trust is added on to the evidence, faith then is misunderstood in terms of what is provided to us and what is our role in receiving the power of the object we trust. When we say "our faith", what are we referencing? It is our reliance on or trust in the evidence we believe to be true. It would help to replace the word "faith" with "conclusive evidence" as we read and teach. This can help everyone see faith as equally or more important as scientific evidence in what we trust to be true.

Third, "suffering" is a favorite topic of preachers and theologians. However, the English word suffering has numerous different Greek words that represent different views of suffering than just the one concept we have in English. We hear suffering and we think of pain or affliction brought on by circumstances that are not in our favor. But often in a particular passage of Scripture suffering means something very different and rarely (I am not sure I have ever) heard a pastor or teacher make any distinction.In fact, almost 100% of the time the singular notion of suffering is added on to the passage, distracting from the actual meaning. This add on appeals to a human core assumption about circumstances. It is in our human nature to see joy as happiness, a consequence of our circumstances. We tend to want to view a situation or an object as "good" if it favors our desires.

However, one word translated "suffer" simply means to allow. "Suffer the children to come unto me", Jesus says. This one is hard to add on the notion of pain so "piling on" doesn't happen here often. In Romans 5 we have the famous passage on perseverance. We are told to hold steadfast in our "suffering" - our difficult circumstances that do not conform to our desires because God will win in the end. But the word often translated as suffering here is actually tribulation. Tribulation means pressure we receive spiritually. It is the pressure we feel by being in the world but not of the world. That is a very different discomfort that affliction from losing a job or getting a disease, But this distinction is not made in the preaching and would make a big difference on the understanding and response of the listener. Peter talks a lot about partaking in the "sufferings of Christ". Here the Greek word means "the human emotion of an experience" (I have blogged about this several times). This notion of suffering has no positive or negative connotation so when we make it such, we add on to its meaning and lose what God is saying to us. God's view of this notion is that He intends us to have emotions to every situation like Jesus did. If we did, I don;t think the world would see Christians as worriers and emotionally fragile. How can our faith (evidence of the truth of the Cross) be attractive to a dying world when we look no different than those whose faith is somewhere else?

I do not mean to be critical of theologians, pastors, teachers, etc. I want to encourage them. I understand the phenomenon of add on. Preachers are in the Pauline tradition when they preach against adding anything to what God is saying. Yet we all do. An add on then becomes institutionalized, like progressive sanctification, and becomes legitimate, even "heresy" to question the add on.

Pondering these three add ons are what i do. It is like a curse to me, but God has not shut my mouth on them yet. You may understand this or not, you may agree with me or not, but you should at least ponder all the different ways we pile on to what God sees....

the myth of a "Great Escape"

Most of us operate as if we can escape the danger that lies ahead. We live as if we believe right at the last moment, life will take a turn for the best. Whether it is our health or our wealth, better days lay just ahead. But, deep down inside we are anxious, we feel fear. We are not sure the magic will work for us, but against us. We know that escaping reality in our life is just a dream.

We have choices, and our life ultimately is an outcome of those choices. We may think we are not smart enough or we are victims of forces we cannot control, but we must face up to the fact that we face choices, and whether we want to work at making better choices or not, we have to choose.

I have come to believe that basically most choices have two options. We go left or we go right. Sometimes we don't feel prepared for either, but the choice remains for us to make. Let me share a couple of choices that each of us face. There may be more but if we can get these right, most of the others will follow. The first has to do with which of the two sources of knowledge we trust. The second has to do with which of two sources can satisfy our needs. 

I know many people run from anything that sounds like math, but the fact of the matter is that everyone deals with probabilities in some way all the time. We collect data and we make inferences from the data about the likelihood of something existing or happening. If I marry this person, what is the probability my marriage will last forever, that i will be happy, that my spouse will be faithful. Now, rarely does anyone use formal science to do this, but the process is one of collecting observable "data" and using reasoning to conclude the likelihood of something being a certain way. This is  "science" as evidence and we call this "trusting the facts".

In contrast there is evidence we cannot observe. This is called faith. The source of knowledge for faith is not observable data, but experiences that touch our soul in certain ways so that we "know" something exists or that something will likely happen in a certain way, but we cannot "prove it". We call this "trusting our heart".

There is a problem in knowing what to trust. First, experts have found that people have many biases that influence how they process data. These are endogenous (or internal) like confirmation bias, attribution bias, stereotyping, obsessions with justice, age, sex, individual needs, experience and personality. There are also exogenous (or external) biases of culture. When we consider all of these ways that scientific inference can be flawed, we shy away from trusting that, or we should. Second, we know that our "heart" can deceive us. That our emotions often tell us what we want to hear. So trusting knowledge we get from experience can also be risky. 

Maybe trusting either science or faith knowledge is not our choice. Maybe our choice is not between the two, science or faith, but between relying on ourselves as the source of truth or someone who may actually know. Architects know the truth of their design. Authors know the truth about their stories. Maybe our choice of trust is that we rely on something outside our self to provide us with what is true. We can trust another person's opinion, but they have all the same biases and deceptive influences we have. This then ultimately becomes our first choice we cannot escape, do we trust evidence humans can provide or is there a source of truth that is an origin of truth that we must trust?

The second choice we have to make is what do we depend on for satisfying the needs of our soul. There is general agreement that we all desire purpose, joy, freedom, hope, esteem and belonging. We can either seek to gain these from temporary, observable circumstances or from eternal, unobservable provisions. We can either obtain what we need by what we do (merit) or we can receive from a loving benefactor who willfully grants us what we need as unmerited favor. Whether we think about it or not, we choose one path or the other.



If we decide that provisions for these needs of our soul (versus our body), will be bestowed on us by someone who has the resources, the power, the character, the will, and especially the love, then we must learn to trust this source for our well being. However, the outcome of our trust is not based on how smart we are or how sincere we are, but whether the source is truly trustworthy. Is this source of our provision willing and capable to act on our behalf. Choosing the right source for our soul's well being is vital to how we live our life and the outcomes associated with it.    

SO, no matter how much we dream of a "great escape", it is a myth. We must choose. Trusting our self has many problems and trusting something we cannot see and prove seems so scary, and maybe seems foolish. BUT acting as if we can escape the reality is the real foolishness.

Pondering about it a bit may help .....

  

what if I am wrong?

Alan Greenspan, former President of the Federal Reserve Bank, testified before Congress following the financial crisis that he had been wrong about his economic assumptions for 40 years. His error contributed to a devastating crisis. Many people say that their greatest fear is not death, but being wrong.

In my previous blog we looked at an important question about what it means for an object to be "good." I gave basically two alternative core assumptions that would determine which worldview would influence how a person would answer that question. I have blogged before about core assumptions and defined core assumption as a fundamental belief we hold so dear that we do not question it, but use it to "prove" many of the other beliefs we have. If there are more than one core assumption, what if we have the wrong one?

There is a close association of the notion of core assumption and faith. They are not the same thing but easy to confuse as being the same. A core assumption is a belief we do not prove and faith is conclusive evidence we cannot observe. Because both operate somewhat "invisible" to us, they feel kinda like they are the same. We will come back to this in a bit.

You may have heard the phrases, "walking by faith" and "walking by sight". Since core assumptions are based on what's invisible or non provable to us and inference is observable, we can illustrate these two ways of "walking" like this. At first glance, you may think I am saying that the size of our core assumptions are different. That's not what I am trying to convey.

We all actually have core assumptions about similar things, like what makes something "good" or are we dependent on circumstances to be happy? The differences in size of core assumption in this illustration is the degree we trust our core assumption versus trusting inferences we make through rational inquiry and testing observable data. Many Philosophers have created the idea that we must trust inference and therefore we must spend time and effort growing our bag of knowledge to be more skewed toward that gained by inference. In that way, we are trusting evidence we can observe ("walking by sight")and not evidence we cannot ("walking by faith"). You can think of it this way, we sit in our core assumptions (what we believe without questioning the evidence) and walk by the evidence we trust to be true.

The ultimate outcome of our life, however, is not how much we can trust evidence, whether gained by scientific inquiry or accepted without question. Outcomes are based on how right the evidence we cannot observe (faith) is that we base our core assumptions on. Greenspan was a very smart economist, well versed in inquiry and testing ideas with science. BUT, the crisis occurred because he had the wrong unobserved evidence in his core assumptions from which all subsequent inquiry was based.

If we don't have evidence of what is true that's one thing, but if we do not even care which direction we are going, well, that's another!

The latter is just as wrong as the former and greatly to be feared.

Ponder that a bit, will ya'?
 

what makes this pie "good"?

"how you doing?" "GOOOOD" "How's your day going?" "GOOOOD"

"How's that pie?" "GOOOOOOD"
Have you ever thought much about what makes something "goooood"? My last blog touched on this idea a little, but I thought it needed a bit more discussion.


I had an elderly neighbor recently (he has since died) that would correct me when I used "good" as an adverb. He would say "use 'well' as an adverb and 'good' as an adjective." So, I got a "good" (can't stop using that word) grammar lesson on the use of "good." However, the most important impact of the word "good" for each of us is the core assumption we have on what "makes something 'good'."

A core assumption is something we believe that we do not question but use to interpret everything else. Human nature tends to create in us a core assumption that "good" is a quality of an object that provides us a favorable experience. "Good" tends to be circumstantial evidence that the outcome of something is positive.

So, if we are hungry or happen to really enjoy pie, we might be given a piece of pie and say, "that is good pie." If we have just eaten or are really a cake person or prefer ice cream on our pie, we may not think the pie is so good. We may say it is good if we do not want to hurt the baker's feelings, but we will not think it is so good.

Suppose we had a different core assumption about what makes something "good." Suppose that "good" was really a quality of the baker of the pie, not the outcome we experience from the pie. Suppose a "good pie" was one in which the baker was skilled, was wise and had knowledge of ingredients that produced a high quality pie. Suppose the baker put a lot of love into the pie. Suppose the baker cared a lot about the people who would eat the pie. Suppose that is what made the pie "good." This core assumption would alter our knowledge of the pie and consequently our experience of eating the pie. No longer would "good" be based on how the pie met our needs, but on our admiration and respect for the baker.

The same with a building or a house. What makes it "good"? The circumstantial evidence of how it satisfies us, or the qualities of the architect who designed and constructed the building. Is a "good" building really about the knowledge, skill, vision, and purpose that went into the building. What we believe is "good" depends on our core assumption of what makes an object "good?"

The same applies to actions, what we or others do. Is the action GOOD because of how favorable the outcome is that the actor produced or because the actor contains the admirable qualities of the one who created him/her?

I plan to blog more on core assumptions next,
but this is enough for now.

Soooo, just do a little pondering........

having a "good" day?

Yesterday I was eating some popcorn while relaxing in downtown Greenville when suddenly, CRACK, part of my tooth broke off. There wasn;t any real sudden pain except the thought of spending gazillion $ getting an implant. Plus, the store only had enough popcorn for a small bag so I was feeling cheated on the amount of popcorn I could get too. Bummer. "Bad day"?


Well, certainly my circumstances were not stellar. But, is that what makes my day "good" or "bad". Does  "good" simply mean anything that meets my needs and "bad" anything that does not?

This is a pretty common view of what it means to have "good" and "bad" days. It is certainly the way humans make sense of life. But, is that the way God sees things? Am I left to my circumstances to determine the quality of my life? Sounds kinda futile doesn't it? Is hoping for a "good" life just about wishing for the right circumstances?

I don't think I had control of my tooth breaking or the amount of popcorn the store had available at the time I purchased. Am I then just a victim, subject to random "good" and random "bad"? There are many questions often asked and many conclusions often reached about what makes a "good" day and what makes a "bad" day.

The ultimate issue is not whether we can control circumstances so life can be "good" and not "bad", but what core assumptions do we have about "good" and "bad" to begin with.

Certainly worth pondering .........