why relative truth feels so natural

 Most people can generally agree with some absolute truths about the physical world, such as the law of gravity. But, there are truths about the physical world that we can't all agree on, such as the origin of the world, climate change, when life begins, and others.

Generally, if truth about the physical world has moral implications, society begins to take sides. The debate is easily settled if we can agree truth is relative. The virtue of tolerance is just the other side of the relativism coin.

It seems only Christians put up a fight that truth is absolute. God has established order and laws of the physical and spiritual realms, and that is that. Just read His word and you have the truth.

This argument falls on deaf ears. The world does not buy in to this absolute truth thing. In fact, it is sneaky easy for Christians to be sucked into this position on truth too. Of course, many mainstream Christians need to be culturally relevant and will not fight the non Christian world on this. There are even evangelicals, while always stating the theological position of absolute truth, find they practice relativism in ways they can't explain.

The issue is that relativism flows from our human nature. Relativism is not what someone chooses to believe but is preferred and considered vitruous because relativism fits the carnal mind. Relativism is an outcome belief of core assumptions of the natural mind.

What makes relativism flow from human nature? There are at least 3 reasons.

First, the carnal core assumption about how truth is determined is as follows: the truth about an object is determined by the observer of the object. That is the basis of science. We collect observations and apply scientific inquiry to the data, drawing conclusions about the object. There are a couple of problems with this. Two people cannot make the exact same observations for several reasons. Perception is limited. Judgments are biased. If truth is determined by an observer, then each observer can justify its conclusions. The debate is who has the best process, but all scientific inquiry is biased and limited. Science can only determine probabilistic cause and effect relationships. It is futile at determining absolute truth. Thus truth must be relative.

Second, one of the main biases of the human condition is confirmation bias. This influence controls where and what data we collect. It is human nature to first have a conclusion as to what is true and then gather evidence needed to support that predetermined conclusion. Because each of us knows deep down our version of the truth is biased, we cannot stand firm on our conclusion with any confidence and ultimately find it virtuous to accept others' conclusions as just as valid as ours. Thus truth must be relative.

Thirdly, all human relationships are maintained via social exchange. Social exchange is the norm of reciprocity - we give to get and when we receive we are obligated to return the favor. You might ask, "how does this support relativism?" Let me ask, "why is consensual sex deemed right?" "Why does the means justify the end?" The virtue of social exchange is justice. If both parties in an exchange receive what they expect or want, then the exchange is fair and if the exchange is fair, then it doesn't matter what the actions individually are. If both parties mutually agree to have sex, then the principles of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman are not necessary to determine if the actions are right. If they are right, based on social exchange, then the actions are true. Since there are many ways to make an exchange fair, truth must be relative to the nature of the exchange.

All of these reasons that relativism feels right is deep ingrained in human nature. A person's core assumptions are attached to or flow from a person's identity. If absolute truth is to feel right, not just endorsed through theological rigor, we must have a new identity. Only when we are transformed by the renewing of our mind do we take on the mind of Christ. Until then, Christians, no matter how committed to their beliefs, they are controlled by their core assumptions. Christians will find that while they endorse absolute truth, they embrace relativism.

This is the mission and work of b4Worldview .... Give it a try!!

"I shall not want .."

Several thousand years ago a song writer wrote these lyrics. While this song (Psalm 23) is not available on iTunes, it's words are familiar to many, even one of the most memorized songs of all times. Of course we recognize it as a song of praise by David to God for His provision and protection. Have you ever wondered if everyone understands the words in the same way as David.

First, there are people who do not believe in God or believe that if there is a God, He either does not care, is not involved, or is not capable of this claim. They would think, isn't this obvious since we rarely get everything we want. We get sick and don't get well. We work hard and someone else gets the promotion. We love someone deeply and they leave us. So this must be a false claim. Anyone who believes it must need to feel like things will eventually go well. After all, we are told to be positive - a little hope, even when things seem hopeless, is always soothing.

Then there are those who believe in God and believe God loves them and wants the best for them, but they believe satisfaction is found in their circumstances. So when they hear, "I shall not want", they feel God is on their side and He will tilt the game of life in their favor. BUT then, our experience does not always line up with what we sing in this song. While those with this view may not abandon God, they can easily feel God has abandoned them. They may even feel they are not good enough for God to keep His promise to them, so they won;t get what they want.

But David's view of God is neither of these two. He knows in His heart (gnosis knowledge) that God is Sovereign, all powerful and loves him dearly. There is never a question of whether God can and will act on his behalf. The difference is that David understands that worldly provision is just temporary and is not how his soul is ultimately satisfied. David follows this claim in the song with, "He restores my soul." This suggests that everything the soul wants comes to him by God's willful acts of love.

In this song David is sharing he recognizes that everything we want is perfectly known by God and given to us without fail. This view of these lyrics requires a different core assumption on how our soul is satisfied than the first two views above. It is interesting that two people can view the same event and have two totally different experiences, depending on their core assumptions.

This is the goal of b4Wolrdview, to fully explore the 2 different core assumptions, or patterns of thought, that ultimately lead to how we view experiences. Have you noticed how people's fondness for singing songs with great energy reflect their view of life? BUT does every view lead to an abundant and virtuous life? Shouldn't we all get the right core assumptions so we can have the best view?

We think so ..... @ www.b4worldview.com
   

What keeps you up at night?

Most decent people in our world today take seriously the physical threats to our children and grandchildren. Abuse, terror, bullying, sex trafficking, abduction, and so forth are so prevalent in our world today. I have a friend who was so passionate about this that she became a prosecutor just to put away the "bad guys" who threatened our children.

There's another type of threat that we often think about, and that is what our children are being taught in school. This type of threat poses different kinds of risks to our children, the risk that their mind is polluted and contaminated in ways that deceive them and steal their joy.

I recently learned that a prominent education course on "The Theory of Knowledge" teaches that knowledge comes in 8 ways: language, sense perception, emotion, reason, imagination, faith, intuition and memory. These look reasonable and the students learn them because the teacher requires it. BUT, do these line up with Kingdom principles of knowledge? What happened to "revelation"? "conscience"? Is emotion a way to know or a response to knowing? Regardless of how benign a threat like this course appears to be, if its wrong, then the kids are at risk.

Many parents and students may not know whether this is true or not. So how do kids and their parents KNOW the truth about KNOWING? Does it matter? Is there an alternative available for parents and kids to find out?

This is what keeps us up at night @  http://www.b4worldview.com/

 

"created in His image"

While it is becoming more offensive to openly bring God into public discourse, our culture finds more stealth ways to rob our joy. I often hear people use "we are created in God's image" for personal gain, whether Christian or not. Our culture likes to reinforce the virtue of "tolerance" by saying every person is "like God" and so we must be kind, respectful, and acceptance of them regardless .... blah, blah blah !! AND, we just go along as if this is true.

Well, it must be true. If you were to Google "image of God" you might get something like this from Wikipedia:

"The Image of God is a concept and theological doctrine in Judaism, Christianity, and Sufi Islam, which asserts that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Philosophers and theologians have debated the exact meaning of the phrase for millennia. In Christian thought, the Image of God is intimately linked to the idea of Original Sin. The Image that was present in Adam at creation was partially lost with the Fall of Man, and that through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, humans can be reunited with God. Christian writers have stated that despite the Image of God being partially lost, each person fundamentally has value regardless of class, race, gender or disability. Regardless of the exact meaning of being made in the Image of God, the concept is a foundational doctrine of Christianity and Judaism."

Wikipedia is a great place to go to see what our culture has done to the original intent of a word. Notice the idea of "and likeness" is the only additional meaning given to "image". Notice the reference to the idea of image to support the virtue of diversity - "each person fundamentally has value". Both of these "expanded" explanations of "image" feel pretty good, except they are not right. To apply what God is really saying to us would not be very PC, it would make us accept an intolerant religious judgment. We would have to see our self as God designed us, not what we think we should be. So its better when we just go along to get along with what our culture has "bullied" us into believing. Then, what God really wants us to know about ourselves is not allowed in our "selfies."

Here is what God said, "we are created in His "eikon" (image). This word means representative or manifestation. We were created as representatives of God. Our purpose is to represent Him. We get sidetracked by what the culture wants us to think. We represent Him and manifest Him not when we behave a certain way, treat each other ethically or "justly", but rather when we trust Him, when we are agents of reconciliation, not to the world but to Him. We represent Him when we embrace our Spiritual identity, when we worship the Creator, not the creature. We represent Him when we "walk by faith, not by sight." We represent Him when we receive from Him the Grace He has bestowed on us. When we seek our well being from other people and our circumstances, we represent the "worthless and elemental principles of this word."  God says we were NOT created to represent the world's system, but to manifest Him to all peoples of the world.

We must learn to rebut the deceptive use of God's word for the carnal purposes of man.

We must be confident and bold with how God uses His image to transforms culture when culture desires to transform His image.

Wudn't it be GREAT?

There are a lot of things in the world each of us wish could be different, BETTER. We are in the midst of the most unusual and unattractive political campaign in modern times. Wudn't it be GREAT if we had better candidates.

For me, I wish we would quit shouting over each other and have a better political narrative. How we "talk about" what we believe matters. Wudn't it be GREAT if political campaigns discussed core assumptions instead of attacking each other personally and occasionally judging each other's conclusions on policy.

You may be asking, "what do you mean by core assumptions?" These are closely held beliefs and patterns of thinking that people never question, but use to draw conclusions about everything else - from suitability of a candidate to which policy is best. "Which core assumptions should be debated?", you may now ask.

Good question.

As far as our country goes, we should decide on which institutions meet the needs of society the best - government or free markets? We should decide if we should view the changing culture through the lens of a Constitution that is a stable, absolute view of law or whether Constitutional law should adapt to changing culture? There are others but this would be a good start. If we cannot agree on these core assumptions, we never will agree on people to govern us. We will never resolve issues on marriage, abortion,capital punishment, guns, sexual identity and such. The paths determined by differing core core assumptions should be on the ballot, not personalities.

BUT, there is even a more profound diversity of core assumptions that every person should be able to articulate and decide intentionally what they believe. However, human nature as it is, generally influences people to take the easy and safe way. So, most people just conform to prevailing cultural positions that make them feel legitimate and argue conclusions that they really haven't thought about much.

For example, whether you are a Christian or not a Christian, you should be able to adequately discuss
1) the 2 types of "knowledge"
2) the 2 different ways "truth" can be determined
3) the 3 different forms of life and what makes life "good"?
4) the 3 different ways to view the "law"
5) the 2 different ways humans can be accepted
6) the 2 different ways to view "reality"
7) the 2 kinds of evidence we "trust"
8) the 2 types and 3 forms of identity - finding "self"
9) the 3 approaches to power

Where you come down on each of these is not my point at this time, BUT wouldn't it be GREAT if every millennial and their parents, their professors, their governmental authorities, their friends, their mentors, and so on were competent in explaining these competing core assumptions. I envision a time when much of what we debate is focused on the differences in these 9 areas of core assumption. Debating topics like "how do we know God exists?", "are people naturally good?", "why is there evil?" and "is Jesus the only way to God?" are futile if we start from differing core assumptions. For instance, what does "know" mean? "exist"? "good"? "way"?

Usually when I make a point, many people say, "yes, I agree, but HOW?"

I am not a "how" person by nature, BUT I have spent over a year scripting an online learning experience where anyone who stays with it for 10 - 12 hours will come away with a competency to discuss these assumptions.

I envision hearing people of all ages and stages talking about these core assumptions as easily and eagerly as they talk about politics, sports, music, and each other.

Wudn't THAT be GREAT!!! ... 

What to do "when it sounds so right"?

There are so many posts on social media these days of platitudes that really make us feel good. For some reason we feel virtuous if we embrace a quote from someone that everyone would agree on and admire. Here is an example of a blog from an author of a book, The Mosaic, a call to more virtuous living through inter-connectedness:

HONOR SACREDNESS

See yourself. Notice how you are. What triggers you? See what you see,and then see what you don't see. How do you show up? How does money and power affect you? 



Powerful men sometimes try to abuse woman, 
Powerful woman sometimes try to abuse men. 

I know it. It happened to me, and I am strong. I stood up to it. Be the one who stands up for what brings honor and dignity to the world. Be the one who acts in sacredness. What is happening now is a sign for us to honor more and more the sacredness of all life. to honor each other,  to honor the truth,  to honor the sacred connection between us.


Our young people read this and go, "yeah." Business leaders read this and go, "I like that." Many Christians read this and say, "I am all for sacred, he must be a Godly man." Here's my concern, this author makes these statements from core assumptions we never even notice. AND, until we draw conclusions from something someone writes or says, we need to examine what lies beneath the statement. Too often platitudes expressed, and that can include Scripture verses, is like a cup of hot tea, or warm milk, or even a refreshing beverage. It makes us feel good, but how it makes us think, feel, and act can be quite off base from what we think we believe.

If we are not clear about our own core assumptions, then platitudes can reinforce patterns of thought that do not fit with what we think we believe. So what should you do when you read or hear such "right sounding" platitudes?

1. Look for key words - in this statement they might be, "honor", "sacred", "to the world," "see", and "truth."
2. Make sure you have a clear idea of what your core assumptions of these words are and that they fit what you believe.
3. See if you can draw from the context of statement the core assumptions of the author.
4. Accept the platitude as an encouragement or reject the author's point as subtle deception.

From other writings and discussions I have had with this author, he sees the material world as reality and man as the center of it. The notion of "honor sacredness" is what we should hold in esteem to make us justified as a "good person." He believes that we become more virtuous and more purposeful as we connect with the world around us. This connectedness allows us "to see what we previously could not see", such as opportunities to be kind, helpful, opportunistic, etc.

All of this is secular humanism that is at enmity with being a child of God. His core assumptin is that the "Mosiac" belongs to the world, BUT, the Kingdom assumption is that the "The Mosaic" belongs to God. Our connection is first with Him though His act of Grace, not though our being strong. For the author, "to honor truth" is admirable, but what is his assumption of truth? The Kingdom assumption is that truth is revealed to us by Jesus and it is impossible for humans to determine on their own, through improving their observations and seeing more of what they haven't seen. The core assumption of the author is that humans are the creator, the determinant of truth.

While we certainly become more virtuous as we honor what is sacred and connect with truth and others, it is only through God's Sovereign grace in our lives that we "move and have our being." While most people feel like minded on the surface with this platitude, there is an eternal difference in what it means based on our core assumptions of knowledge, truth and faith.

Learning to grasp the vital difference in carnal and Kingdom core assumptions is our challenge and the mission of b4Worldview ......  

cart b4 horse

Christian apologetics have developed narratives on the Kingdom ever since the crucifixion. "Does God exist?" is likely the most often debated topic with atheists. The minds of Christians and non Christians have sharpened with great precision across the years. Oh, who has won?
Doesn't seem like either since there are many on both sides still sharpening their apologetic weapons.

Anyone think there's an issue with this? I am sure I am not the only one that has stepped back and asked what's wrong with this picture?

When I began looking at this from a different angle, the first thought occurred to me that maybe it's the wrong question. After all, that's what a good mathematician should do. Once I asked this, it came to me that each side of the argument does not understand "to know something exist" in the same way. Looking at this purely objectively, they are not in the same debate. It seems to me that both have put the cart b4 the horse. Maybe there should be an equally energetic debate on what does "know" and "exist" mean?

This is the mission of b4Worldview. Christians cannot debate non Christians on worldviews if they start with the same core assumptions. Christians can easily be confused when their theology seems contradictory to deeply held presuppositions they may not even know they have.

b4 we humans can adequately agree on a view of God, we should agree on God's view of us humans.

But since non Christians do not believe there is a God and therefore there is no view, the only assumptions that define the debate stage are "worthless and elementary principles of this world."

We must have a way to debate core assumptions without having to start with agreement on God. If we can't, we will always debate important ideas by putting the cart b4 the horse. Oh wait, that's why we all need a b4Worldview course. Or at least that's my assumption ....