TruthBites

The Outrage Algorithm: Living in the Land of Irrational Unreality

Posted on by

Most people participating in posts on social media may be unaware that their responses including reposting, shares, tags and most especially emotional responses to posts are manipulated by nefarious algorithms. The “outrage algorithm” is a self-reinforcing “feedback-loop” originating from an A.I. generated “recommended content” that is solely intended to amplify angry, divisive, and emotionally charged responses to unverified content popping up on everyone’s Home screen feed. What is driving the outrage algorithm is user engagement. By participating and resharing the content you are extending yours and other friend’s screen time which serves to maximize ad revenue via clicks while at the same time spreading outrage throughout the platform. Unsuspecting participants therefore serve to perpetuate disinformation by reposting and adding their comments. “This is outrageous!” they proclaim. Of course it is. That’s the point. Gotcha!

This is not to say that there aren’t, in fact, some reliable sources worthy of sharing. However, most posts circulating on the platform are merely intended to incite outrage so be vigilant and careful when reacting. Take a deep breath and then remove the post from your feed rather than repost or share it. I’m fascinated by how quickly people who experience this “outrage algorithm” respond before they even think about why they are feeling so upset. Maybe do a little background research of your own before you react. Ask yourself is this really true or possibly partially true but mostly misleading disinformation? Why do so many “smart” people get sucked into this charade? Responses are often brutal attacks on personal character, broad sweeping over generalized projection. Participant’s unthoughtful responses unintentionally usher in blame and scapegoating.

Another algorithm circulating social media is the “virtue signaling gaslight” sham. These cite notable authors by taking their comments out of context. Again, In this scenario, the intent of the algorithm is to engage the participant to virtue signal their “uncompromising” values while projecting shame onto others who may not explicitly “Like,” copy and share the hypothetical example of moral ideas such as caring for disadvantaged children with disabilities, deprived and underprivileged. Participants are unaware that they are being used to perpetuate a feedback-loop of projected shame onto friends and family members by asking them to share the post. People who engage in the scheme feel virtuous yet are unaware of the shame that is being perpetuated. This is similar to the outrage algorithm in that the purpose of this devious tactic is to project both virtue and shame. This too is intended to divide and separate whilst increasing ad revenue via boosting screen time and clicks. Accordingly, participating routinely in this kind of content can serve to reframe one’s thinking and desensitize natural neural pathways divinely designed to discern common sense truth from irrational unreality. Studies show that focusing too much time and effort on this kind of screentime can negatively impact emotional self-regulation linked to changes in brain structure and lower the level of executive function replacing critical thinking skills with copy and paste parroting.

Participants in these viral and pernicious posts can only embarrass themselves appearing sophomoric and gullible. I recall my sophomore year in high school. The year was 1968. The Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago August 26-29 in the backdrop of widespread protests against US foreign and domestic policy including the Vietnam War. Just a few weeks prior to the convention, Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Senator Robert F. Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Think about that for a minute and let it sink in. Was this the result of “influencers,” political pundits, catastrophizing news feeds and pushing outrageous narratives? Like today, there was division in the Democratic party and intense pressure to conform to more progressive identity politics and extreme (us vs. them) individualism. I recall our high school civics teacher encouraging some students to go to downtown Chicago and join the protest (for extra credit, of course). From the perspective of these more mature and reflective senior years of my life, I see this now as an analogue version of the outrage and virtue signaling algorithms. So, this is really nothing new. The pendulum swings, does it not? I’m curious, who are the people perpetuating the outrage apparatus? What’s the endgame? The outrage algorithm has opened a Pandora’s box where we find ourselves fighting our own nagging negative self-doubts and living in the land of irrational unreality.

Final thoughts, insights and opinion:

Who are these people perpetuating the outrage apparatus and other false narratives? Allow me to be blunt. I believe that there are people who wish to inflict “mind viruses”—far-leftwing woke-ism and the very strange alliance with radical Islamism. Simply put the ultra-liberal, progressive social constructivists and bizarrely radical have one thing in common, the scapegoating of Christian conservatives—the desire to liberate people from the shackles of reality. These people include most university professors (over 95%), the absolutely corrupt teachers unions (not teachers) and administrative policy makers in state and federal government and NGO’s where ideological Stalinism is shamelessly professed. America and the West has become too focused on rights instead of personal responsibility. We have come to embrace a false idea of liberty, conceiving of it as doing as one pleases rather than as the freedom to fulfill one’s human potential, care for one’s conscious duties to family and God.

I ponder why some people are so quick to compromise values and traditions, that thing to be “handed down” from generation to generation, that allows us to understand our contemporary selves in relation to others, God and country, the natural endowed principles that enable us to overcome the constraint of self-knowledge that modernity, especially, so called, post modernity imposes. Recently, we have seen the unmasking of socialist/communism via various emissaries and their groupies. Indeed history tends to repeat itself. “Who knows only his own generation remains always a child” (Etched on the west entrance of Norlin Library CU Boulder; attributed to Dr. George Norlin, former president of the University. It is a modern variation of a classic sentiment by Cicero).

If you find yourself sucked into this kind of messaging, don’t despair. You’re not alone. Many people have been drawn down this dark web corridor where lying and distorting of the truth has become commonplace. Consider the foundational virtues that unite us as Americans? What are our common core values? Stand fast on the spirit of truth and the values that unite us. Perhaps we should focus more on “we?” Afterall, this push to divide and separate is directed towards “us.”

The Illusory Truth Effect: Time to Hit the Pause Button

Posted on by Leave a comment

Most of us are aware of the saying “repeat a lie often enough and people will eventually come to believe it”. The illusory truth effect occurs when repeating a statement increases belief that it is true even when the statement is proven to be actually false (Lynn Hasher, David Goldstein, and Thomas Toppino, 1977). Social scientists have successfully repeated this study, so it stands up to repeated trials and construct validity. Astonishingly, even when people know a statement to be false, they can continue to perpetuate it. This is especially true when the truth runs counter to what one wants to believe (or feels) or if one may benefit in some way from perpetuated speech[i].

Fraud and perpetuated speech

Whenever someone is defrauded, i.e., cheated out of money, property, legal rights, or anything valuable through trickery and deceit, false statements and slander always follow. The fraudster never says, “Yea, I screwed him really good!” Instead, they create a narrative about how the person or people they defrauded are the real offenders and provocateurs. The fraudsters are not only thieves but also liars. Lying is necessary to protect their character and reputation. But once uncovered, their reaction is outrage. “All fraud is perpetuated by speech.” “When you use speech to commit fraud, it is not protected by the First Amendment,” (Special Counsel Jack Smith, 2026). When we observe gaslighting like we have recently, we can be confident that the fraudsters are blaming others for their own narcissistic nihilism in order to create nagging doubt. “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Gen 3:1, NIV). Surely the victim is guilty.

Let’s be honest, government bureaucracy makes it easy to defraud the tax payer (you and me) through programs like Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) during COVID, USAID, SNAP, Feeding Our Future (FOF) in Minneapolis, similar FOF programs in Maine and California, not to mention healthcare fraud including over $14 billion in false claims. The list goes on and on. Why? Fraud appears to be most prevalent when government leaders implement social welfare programs designed to “take care of the people.” Why do the fraudsters always manage to get away with the scam? Perhaps it’s because they are often enabled by political coconspirators. Again, USAID is one such example. People lose faith in their elected government officials and become cynical.

The illusory truth effect is real and it can stifle personal growth, well-being and sense of community and shared values (van Prooijen J.W., Šrol J, Maglić M., 2025). It ushers in anxiety and paralysis crushing spirits and ultimately dividing and separating people into classes (haves and have nots). Accordingly, division is the primary objective. The Illusory truth effect takes a page out of Saul Alinski’s playbook, “Rules for Radicals.” This infamous treatise details how to create a social state by dividing the people into wealthy and poor, informed and uninformed (stupid) in order to cause discontent and class warfare.

What to do? How should we choose to live our lives? What values do we stand for? What is one’s “redline,” and when crossed, what action should we take? How do we discern truth from misinformation? Have you considered what might have caused some people to be swept up into the web of misinformation? If we don’t agree with another’s perspective, do we cancel, censor, demean, shame, tear down and cry out loudly? Have we lost our sense of dignity and respect for one another? I hope not! “So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another” (Romans 14:19, NIV).

While I was teaching graduate studies at the university, students could not advance to “candidate” until they successfully submitted and defended their research proposal. I served as the research chair for over 500 students during my tenure and taught Research Methods, an advanced statistics course with the emphasis on how to conduct evidence based research. In the first week of class I instructed students to not believe everything they read, see or hear, including what was being taught by their professors. I’m an advocate for critical thinking. Schools are for educating not indoctrinating! Learn how to think and write original and authentic compositions (posts). As much as is possible, interview the original author of a research publication. Most researchers love to share their knowledge with graduate students and other researchers. Meet with people that have opposing viewpoints, perspectives and worldviews. Listen carefully and you will learn a lot.

That said, I’m going to suggest that when one “feels” hard pressed, threatened, unsafe, pushed over the edge, triggered and/or outraged, that this “feeling” is not a coincidence, it is caused by premeditated and calculated hyperbole. Personal feelings are a reaction to the illusory truth effect. Remember, the Internet amplifies misinformation (see my prior blog post “feedback loop”). When the noise is amplified to the point of distorted saturation, wise people will hit the pause button. It is time we reboot and engage with each other outside the Internet platforms like we used to do before TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Can you recall what it was like to experience facial expressions and body language? Endeavor to connect at a deeper and more meaningful, thoughtful and disciplined level. Share what you think with others and explain how and why you arrived at your perspective instead of “cut and paste” perpetuated speech.

We live in times of great change and find ourselves overwhelmed with deception via the Internet and social media. AI is designed to locate existing information on specific topics but some of that metadata is misinformation, not to mention unscrupulous content and programming bias. The challenge will be how to discern truth and overcome the toxic consequences of the illusory truth effect.

References

Alinsky, Saul David, 1909-1972. Rules for radicals : a practical primer for realistic radicals / Saul D. Alinsky. — Vintage Books ed.,

Bible NIV (1978). Zandervan

Hasher, Lynn; Goldstein, David; Toppino, Thomas (1977). “Frequency and the conference of referential validity”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 16 (1): 107–112. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80012-1

Rincón, E., (2021). There’s No Denying the Socialist Roots of Fascist. FEE. https://fee.org/articles/theres-no-denying-the-socialist-roots-of-fascism/

van Prooijen JW, Šrol J, Maglić M., (2015). How belief in conspiracy theories could harm sustainability. Nat Hum Behav. 2025 Sep;9(9):1770-1779. PMID: 40550915Review.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (January 22, 2026). Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

[i] “Perpetuated speech” refers to the continuation, preservation, or repetition of specific words, phrases, myths, or narratives over time, often keeping harmful stereotypes, misinformation, or undesirable situations alive. This term highlights how, through repeated usage (often by media, culture, or individuals), spoken language causes negative beliefs or misconceptions to last indefinitely.

Feedback Loop!

Posted on by Leave a comment

In the recording of music a feedback loop is a sound production technique used to enhance the listener’s experience with a delay and/or echo effect on a particular signal such as a guitar or voice track. From my experience in the “old school” analogue days this was achieved by sending a signal from the playback head of a recorder back to the record head causing a record/playback/record feedback loop. The signal can be manipulated to bring more delay and echo to the point of overload creating an unpleasant distortion of the effect. These days there is digital outboard gear that can duplicate the effect. But either way, the more the signal is amplified, the more distortion and/or noise is produced.

Today’s social media platforms (Tik Tok, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) and news feeds and even some educators will use this same principle of feedback loop to distort content in order to influence public opinion and social change. We are all subject to a seemingly endless stream of “information,” most of it half-truths or worse, lies. In this bizarre social experiment, social influencers and content creators are seeking to evoke fear to polarize, separate and enrage people affecting the way we relate to one another. Social researchers note that anger is really the emotional response to fear (NIH). Not so surprisingly, we have all observed elevated levels of anxiety, division, outrage and anger in this current climate.

It is within the intersectional ethos of conflicting values we experience our true selves. Some people will shut down and retreat into their familiar filter bubbles or, echo chambers while others will be more reflective and engaged, seeking to understand these diverging worldviews (attitudes and values) as learners and not as knowers. By stepping into this “epistemic gap” we can work through the dissonance, begin to depolarize and rediscover common-core values. Still many will merely demean, blame and shame the “other’s” perspectives and transfer their fears and anger onto their family members, friends and associates that do not agree with their point of view. Facts they shout… The fact is… I would argue that we can no longer trust statistics. It is sad but more true that many researchers routinely publish biased misinformation. Yes, there is a overwhelming volume of research bias in the Academy where researchers tend to find what they are looking for. Not so surprising that these same researchers will tend to censor and silence alternative evidence-based positions or, refer to certain set of facts as conspiracy theories. However, when the truth is eventually exposed, “they” will unapologetically acquiesce and amend the data. But the damage has already been done. The misinformation has been copied and reposted millions of times.

I have to question; Why does there appear to be so much existential despair? Why do some feel as though our world is spinning out of control? I believe we have been lied to for so long, we struggle to define truth. What is truth? How do we know what we know?

There is a saying attributed to Mark Twain, “it ain’t what you don’t know that makes you ignorant, it’s what you think you know for sure that just ain’t so.” We have been fed a feedback loop diet of contentious lies for decades. The question is, how do we discern reality from irrational unreality? How do we navigate these dark times of uncertainty “where absolute truth and values have gone out the window” (Lewis, C. S., The Abolition of Man; Wright, R., The Moral Animal)? Simply put, I believe social influencers and some nefarious unidentified bad actors as well as, “useful idiots” are intentionally and unintentionally generating false information in some instances unwittingly using AI to amplify and distort reality. The result is a feedback loop echo chamber that divides and separates family, friends and neighbors.

I’m going to suggest instead of copying and pasting spent and debunked ideas, write an original thoughtful post. Perhaps share how you feel, what you think, and how you are coping with the flood of misinformation. How do you discern truth from fiction? Perhaps even get off the platforms and back into the coffee shops where we can look each other in the eyes. Be kind and reach out to friends with differing viewpoints. I continue to meet with friends with diverse perspectives and have found listening helps build trust and restores a space for common-core values which inspires a more respectful and positive relationship to grow and flourish. I find that tolerating differences and offering support for sharing personal struggles has had a positive effect on my friends and my own emotional and spiritual health. Remember when tolerance was a virtue? Focus on virtue and common-core values. Get off the feedback loop merry-go-round and seek the truth with grace.

What is Woke?

Posted on by 1 Comment

What is Woke? Recently someone asked on social media, “what is woke”? The question was followed up with, “I mean, is it a bad thing? Why are people not understanding the importance of being woke?” Interestingly, many individuals see woke as a higher understanding of progressive ideas, an ability to be more “aware” and intellectually superior. In an effort to better understand this perspective I set out to explore the origins of “woke” ideology. One perspective in particular, compared the Age of Enlightenment (1685), and, the Renaissance (15th and 16th Centuries) with Galileo’s famous “gravity” experiments as an example of woke. I would like to point out that Galileo (1564-1642) indeed, validated Copernicus’s heliocentric orientation hypothesis (1543) where the planets revolve round the sun. And, this observation posed a serious threat to the current religious paradigm. It marked the beginning of modernity—atomism, elemental reductionism—this was science, and it shook the foundations of organized religion. The chain of events that followed (the Inquisition, as example) failed miserably (Kuhn, 2010). The church at that time called for censorship, index, and inquisition instead of seeking the Truth. The difference between Galileo’s scientific paradigm shift and socially constructed woke ideology is that woke is not science. Woke is actually similar to a kind of pseudo religion where ideological beliefs and feelings are valued more than apodictic (absolute, irrefutable) Truth. What is truth, you might ask? Woke culture focuses on identity from the perspectives of politics, psychology and sex, through the lens of social constructivism and expressive individualism, that is, “you can be anything you want to be.” Accordingly, “the contemporary political scene is dominated by the issues of identity politics where the belief in human authenticity are found in the freeing of oneself from religion and the traditional nuclear family and it’s moral/ethical values which inhibit “free agency” and a return to the natural self” (Truman, 2020). Thus, the idea of the “modern self” clearly finds their roots in the intellectual developments that took place in the eighteenth and nineteen centuries where oppression of feeling became a psychological category. This political, emotional and sexual psychological idea of selfhood is not new. It was first introduced by secular atheists including, Rousseau, Descartes, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud. This represented a reversal of perspectives from an outside-in (man created in the image of God) to a inside-out (man is god) human psychology. Coupled with the rise of the modern self is the idea of sexual freedom with its focus on expressing authentic natural human feelings. And, this pits woke ideology against traditional family values, marriage and institutional Christianity (Truman, p. 201).

What is woke? Woke therefore, is an ideological social construct and not science. Social science, on the other hand, stands up to repeated evidence-based rigor. This is called construct validity. Social constructs do not meet the criteria of the scientific method. True social science such as Solomon Ash’s “conformity theory”; Albert Bandura’s “Social Learning Theory” on aggression through observation; Muzafer Sherif’s “robber’s cave experiments on compliance and competition”, and the brilliant Gestalt psychologists social experiments on “perception, functional fixedness and group think” and finally, cognitive learning theory (Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, and Lev Vygotsky) are all evidence-based. All these studies are valid and replicable social science. Again, woke is not a social science.

How absolutely arrogant and absurd it is to proclaim that woke people are more aware. Awareness, after all has to do with “consciousness”; the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings. It is important to understand oneself in relation with others. This is especially valuable in a multicultural environs where people share common values but embrace different worldwiews. And this kind of awareness (consciousness) is social science (Ornstein,1991). Wokeness hijacks science and truth and replaces it with ideological, socially constructed unreality. This is hardly awareness, it is unawareness. In other words, woke people don’t know what they don’t know. In addition, consciousness is closely associated with “conscience”; an inner feeling or voice acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one’s behavior. This implies that there is an innate awareness of goodness and evil, rightness and wrongness. Of course, these common-core, innate human values interfere with the woke narrative, “there are no absolute truths”. There can’t be truth if one is socially constructing their own reality. And this is why so many informed and educated parents are concerned about the indoctrination of woke ideology on youth within the education system, where traditional value systems are deconstructed and replaced with socially constructed unreality such as, relational anarchy, Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies and Critical Race Theory (CRT). As example, there is the “woke” argument that there are more genders than just biological binary male and female as is evidenced by DNA and genetics(1). For instance, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could not respond to the question, “what is a woman?” This is woke politics and now represented in the Supreme Court.

The greatest lie that woke advocates tell children is that, “you can be anything you want to be”. This is a recipe for self-condemnation and depression. We all have strengths and limitations. But believing this one lie creates a culture of entitled narcissists which eventually leads toward learned helplessness, despair and nihilism (Miller & Seligman, 1975). In a prior post I shared my personal experience and understanding of critical race theory (CRT) and gender identity. What I have observed is either/or group think, division, separation and what amounts to racism and liberal privilege. The woke cancel culture suppress and censer valid alternative research perspectives and the researchers who challenge woke assumptions. This merely exacerbates, either/or binary thinking. Shouting down reason and debate is in every way, fear-based censorship which confirms my point about woke being more like the 15th century religious institutions mentioned in the first paragraph. But, there is some good news.

There is hope! Woke culture is not new. And while it finds its roots in the enlightenment period, woke is just another fad(2) and not a paradigm shift. There are still a few very good universities that teach critical thinking such as the Acton Institute and Colorado Christian University (CCU) and education/leadership institutions that bring together people from all cultures and worldview and debate and discuss the values of a free and virtuous society. A virtuous society is an emotionally and spiritually healthy society, one that is blessed with economic prosperity. Are you interested in becoming a lifelong learner and with a humble heart, willing to seek the truth? Please view the video presentation (below) and respond to this blog post sharing a heartfelt, thoughtful and edifying post.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ornstein, R. (1991). Evolution of consciousness: The origins of the way we think. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. (1975). Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84(3), 228–238. 

Truman, C. R. (2020). The rise and triumph of the modern self: Cultural amnesia, expressive individualism, and the road to sexual revolution. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway

(1). According to the World Health Organization (WHO) gender refers to characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed and include actual or perceived sex, gender identity, and gender expression including a person’s actual or perceived gender-related self-image, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristic regardless of the sex assigned to that person.

(2). Fads have short lifespans while trends have true staying power. Whereas fads are discovered by influencers, receive mainstream adoption (usually after intense media coverage) and then die off, trends take much longer to be cultivated. Once embraced, trends put down cultural roots and grow stronger.

Unremarkable

Posted on by 1 Comment

I am unremarkable. I am not talented and gifted (T & G) and I might even fall somewhere along the learning disability spectrum (ADD). I have a slightly above and rather average intellect but high learning aptitude so, I have learned to work harder than other learners that are obviously smarter than I am–the quick learners. I have learned how to cope with my limitations and become a better student. It might take a little more effort but I know how to apply complicated theories and statistical formulas to real-world problems so I am capable and competent in making informed and balanced unbiased, rational decisions. The bell curve is very real. There are infinite examples all around us. Everything under all creation must fall into the statistical normal distribution. So, I have to wonder why so many people can’t understand this natural truth. Life’s not fair.

Those of you that know me and follow my posts know that I’m an advocate for human rights, liberty, justice and the spirit of truth. I believe in following the science, disciplined inquiry, critical thinking, open, honest and balanced debate. My focus of interest is the natural order of things, “God Loves the Bell Curve.” I like to point out that if you find yourself somewhere out on the extreme fringes (left or right) you are out of touch with reality–you are not in balance with God’s natural order and the statistical truth of the “normal” distribution. So, I was struck by President Biden’s response to the SCOTUS leak. Instead of encouraging people to trust in the sanctity of the Constitution (the 1st and 14th Amendments, as exemplars) and spirit of a democratic republic, he demonized an entire group of Americans, (over half the country), those that identify as conservative, constitutionalists, calling them (us), “the worst threat to democracy in the history of America”. This condemnation and shaming, not only divides the country, it is a false and misleading, us versus them, narrative–and on its face, straight up disinformation and certainly not Presidential. He further established a “Ministry of Truth” a so called, disinformation board, (now on hold) which many believe is really aimed at silencing the truth in a vain and pernicious attempt to control information through misinformation. This, of course, is un-American. Last year (January 2021), I posted a simple question, “do you believe that Joe Biden will be like the Joseph in the Bible, forgiving, benevolent and trustworthy, faithful and honest or, the opposite, divisive, pernicious and mean spirited?” Many people responded with positive affirmations and hope that this this Joe would help to unify our nation. I am curious, what you think about this Joe’s (President Biden’s) character now? Actions speak louder than words! Don’t be afraid, just be honest and speak from your heart. How’s your heart?

References:
The Bible describes the Savior as unremarkable (Isaiah 53:1-4 ESV), “…he was like a tender green shoot, sprouting from a root in dry and sterile ground. But in our eyes He appeared unremarkable and there was no attractiveness at all, nothing to make us want him. 4 Yet it was our grief he bore, our sorrows that weighed him down.

The story of Joseph is told in Genesis (37–50). Joseph, most beloved of Jacob’s sons, is hated by his envious brothers. Angry and jealous the brothers seize him and sell him to a party of Ishmaelites, who carry him to Egypt. In verses 4-5 Joseph forgives his brothers, “I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life.

Science is Dead

Posted on by 1 Comment

It was Neitzsche who proclaimed God is dead. However, this wasn’t entirely a good idea according to Neitzsche. Until the age of Enlightenment, having faith in God established a system of justice and fairness through belief in a all benevolent, loving and grace-filled God. Faith in God is the cornerstone for moral and ethical conduct–pro-social interactions–and common core values such as, altruism, compassion (empathy), love, conscience and sense of justice (autonomy). According to Robert Wright (1994), “all these are the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species think so highly of itself, can now be said to have a firm genetic basis” (p. 12). Both Wright and Neitzsche, of course, are atheists. The infamous text, “God is dead” first originated in his treatise The Gay Science, which most people have never read and never will read. Today, the idea of moral relativism set forth by the social constructivists, has created a sense of selfish entitlement sowing seeds of moral and ethical confusion. More recently, “your truth is your truth and my truth is mine” has given way to a double bind, dualism where alternative perspectives, honest and open debate and search for truth and scientific inquiry has been replaced with group think and pressure to conform to the unreality of socially constructed lies. If you don’t go along with the charade, you are too fragile and a “racist” Deangelo (2020). Make no mistake, this movement is no “paradigm shift” or tipping point, it’s a malicious and cruel attempt to rewrite truth and facts, divide and separate God’s creations (Kuhn, 1996).

I have just finished reading two books with opposing views, White Fragility (2018) by Robbin Deangelo and Blackout (2020) by Candice Owens. Science requires we test so-called truths, ask questions and challenge assumptions. True scientists seek to understand alternative perspectives and epistemology. That’s what we do. It is unfortunate, but most scientists merely repeat old and spent ideas. In a word, they are biased. Some believe that undoing tradition leads to a new system (kingdom) of truly free agents–free from the bondages of natural core values, indeed, free from foundational American traditions and values. However, Nietzsche believed that “the removal of this system put most people at the risk of despair or meaninglessness. What could the point of life be without a God?” 

The universe wasn’t made solely for human existence anymore. Nietzsche feared that this understanding of the world would lead to pessimism, “a will to nothingness” that was antithetical to the life-affirming philosophy Nietzsche prompted. His fear of nihilism and our reaction to it was illustrated in The Will to Power, when he wrote that: “What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism… For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe” (Abrams, Daniel, Haley Yaple, and Richard Wiener, 2016). He would not have been surprised by the recent events that plague American culture in the 21st century teetering on the precipice of Marxism, once again. Some people never learn from the past. Why? The spent and foolish idea of socialism is like a broken and scratched record playing the same old tune over and over again. This is most perplexing.

The fruit of the liberal progressive, social constructivism agenda to transform America has been selfish, vain contempt for science and narcissistic nihilism (Collins, 1998). In a prior blog I shared how we got here. So, we have been lied to about so many things for so long, and mainstream and social media has cancelled free speech, honest and open debate and obfuscated the truth, we no longer know what is valid, reliable and trustworthy knowledge. I believe that the, so called, Russian hoax paved the way for the death of science. We can can actually learn something from the Russians–those who have experienced socialism and survived Marxism. Solzhenitsyn feared that the West would abandon its own moral and spiritual ideas and identity. He viewed the West’s weakness, including its weakness in truly standing up to Marxism as the fruit of materialism, self-indulgent individualism, and narcissism. Solzhenitsyn, a legendary human rights activist, warned America and the West that we had become too focused on rights instead of personal responsibility. So the death of science is preceded by the loss of faith, family and virtue. There has been a solid declining trend in church attendance and traditional nuclear family values (Barna, 2021). And now, some educators are teaching children to feel shamed for the color of their skin (National Equity Project). This is nothing more than modern day babble and noise. It’s not the truth. “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power” (1 Corinthians 4:20, NIV). By all means, God would have us consider carefully what we hear and the source of the information, but in all things we are instructed, Proverbs 15:2, “The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.”  Proverbs 15:4, “The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.” 

Resources

Abrams, Daniel, Haley Yaple, and Richard Wiener. “ArXiv.org Physics ArXiv:1012.1375v2.” [1012.1375v2] A Mathematical Model of Social Group Competition with Application to the Growth of Religious Non-affiliation. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Aug. 2016.

Aldridge, J. (2014). Hart and science of transform-action. Paper presented at the Forum International de L’Innovation Sociale: Autorité, Leadership & Transformation, Dourdan, France.

Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Deangelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lash, S. (1999). Another modernity: A different rationality. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ornstein, R. (1991). Evolution of consciousness: The origins of the way we think. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Owens, C. (2020). Blackout: How black America can make its second escape from the democratic plantation. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

To Everything There is A Season and A Time for Change

Posted on by 2 Comments

We live in times of great change. The COVID-19 pandemic, shelter at home and social distancing marks an unprecedented disruption of business as usual and an opportunity to explore Jesus and leadership as business unusual. As the wisdom of Solomon advises, “there is a time for everything” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, ESV). This is a time for change, deep change from the inside out and outside in. Change that affects everyone for the obvious reasons, loss; of gainful employment, of ability to provide for our families, even loss of life but, for the most part, the ubiquitous loss of our liberty. God created man to be extraordinarily flexible and agile, indeed, to be creative and innovative, agents of change. According to William Bridges, change is a natural, organic process, we are quite adaptable to change.  However, it is not change we fear, no, but rather, the transformations that require reorientation, it is the letting go, of familiar patterns of interaction; attachments, addictions and idols that make us anxious. It is the in-betweens that cause us to stumble and fall. In this sense, change is about loss. And we tend to mourn and grieve loss. We experience the stages of grief–denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

It has been said that God is in the business of transforming people’s lives. However, I believe, He often calls us into a journey, not of our own choosing. If we have the courage to step into this new normal with arms wide open, we discover how the Lord has “opened doors for us no one can shut” (Revelation 3:8). Transformation involves an interesting “experiential dance” between solitude and community. It is a collaborative journey of joint exploration, understanding self in relation with God and His creations–each other. Change, therefore involves both an intrapersonal and interpersonal, within groups and between groups dynamic. So, while we have been created to experience community together, we must also be intentional about spending time alone with our Heavenly Father, just as Jesus showed us. So, what happens when we are forced into exile–isolation and separation? Is God absent in this darkness? Of course not.

I believe, solitude is an opportunity for self examination, introspection and reflection–an opportunity to rediscover our heavenly Father’s Love, Truth and Grace. Solitude provides the opportunity for restoration and renewal of the spirit. In these times of solitude and reflection, we come to realize some things may have subtly changed or, need to change. We might have had to surrender or let go of something (attachment, addiction, idol) in order to experience a rebirth, a new identity emerges. N. T. Wright (2008) proclaims that “the resurrection of Jesus’s body points toward the time and affirms God’s promise to fill the earth with His Glory, transform the heavens and earth and raise up all believers in a new relationship with the Lord” (p. 265). Space, time, matter and hearts are renewed. Take time and find a quiet space to reflect on your life experiences prior to and during COVID through the end of 2020. Where do we go from here? Who can we trust?

Questions: How has the Lord re-directed your steps? How have you responded? How have you been, in some way, transformed or reborn?

Jesus’s resurrection is directly instrumental in bringing about this new birth (p. 271). But first, according to Wright, there must be a death and the curtain veil, must be torn so that we can draw closer to Him and no longer experience this separation of God and self. As we seek Him, we must meet Him in a place of full surrender (Acts 17:27). To be sure, we all enter this journey with a bit of trepidation (approach / avoidance) because it rattles our perception of ourselves, what we know, how we know what we know and, who we are in Christ Jesus which is oftentimes very different from who we think we are in the natural world. We have to take the risk of removing the mask and meeting oneself in the presence of our Lord.

Some of us have an intense fight or flight response and at the same time, we are all learning how to be more resilient and adaptive. I have been in the business of change my entire adult life and frankly, since I was a child. I am used to being all alone and pushing myself or, I should say, picking myself up from my bootstraps. So, I tend to feel confident in the in-between transitions and times of uncertainty. A child sent into the basement, for punishment finds creative ways to overcome darkness and loneliness. After a while, your eyes adjust, and you begin to see glimmers of light everywhere. I have learned that there is more than one way, one truth, that is, we can choose to perceive the world around us as dark and sinister, living in the shadows and, as such, cast same or, we can choose to see lightness gleaming through the darkness. What is obvious is that we need Spirit-led leaders that cast light and hope for rebirth, restoration and renewal–a vision for new beginnings, assuring our God-given inalienable rights for faith, family and freedom. But, what is less obvious is, leaders need followers. America’s exceptional individualism has given way to extreme individualism, narcissism and nihilism.

Indeed, times of great change. This event is different. It’s a tipping point, a paradigm shift. It casts its shadow in the light of day. And, it’s big, really big. The scale of this darkness is global touching the lives of everyone. Again, it eclipses and transcends our God given inalienable rights. This is cataclysmic. Remember, not so long ago, before everything changed, we had so much hope and vision for a prosperous future, didn’t we? The economy was doing extraordinarily well, unemployment was way down, job security was at an all-time high and compensation was on the rise. We were emotionally and spiritually healthy, spring had arrived and we were all looking forward to a new season of prosperity; summer vacations, future successes and unbounded opportunity. But, and it is a rather big BUT, we were divided as a nation. How can we assimilate? Looking back 2,000 years, within that zeitgeist (spirit of the time), I am struck by the request of James and John in the following scripture of (Mark, 10:35-38, ESV);

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

38 “You don’t know what you are asking” (Mark 10:35-38).

This scripture sets the stage for a dramatic turn in events–business unusual, indeed. It was getting exciting, this “movement” was becoming something really big. Think about Palm Sunday and how Jesus was greeted. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Hallelujah! Then it takes a sudden turn. It gets very dark. Everything changed in a heartbeat. This story always reminds me of how proud and risk aversive God’s people can be in times of uncertainty, when we need Him most. Leading without God’s divine direction is not only foolish, it’s pernicious. People want to be a part of something that is successful and exciting. But when the tables turn, the same people turn and run away, they’re nowhere to be found. Life’s experiences are mostly cyclical. We have ups and downs and no one can ride the wave without crashing. The challenge is understanding the benefit of risk. There is a difference between taking risks and recklessness. How can we accept this challenge, to take a risk and step into the epicenter of the COVID-19 storm and create something new and innovative, something all people need. This is the time for innovation. God want’s us to experience the richness of our inheritance in Christ (Ephesians 1:11-17). But this is risky because we need to trust His Word. We need to trust that He is who He says He is. And, He always keeps His promises (Hebrews 10:23).

A lot of decisions that have been made over the past two-three decades focused solely on short-term ROI. And, now we see serious long-term consequences. Trusting in the Lord is like a long distance marathon. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus (Hebrews 12:1-3). Where do we turn in these times of great disruption and uncertainty? Bible studies and small groups have relocated online. Join one or, start one. Others have turned their attention to binge watching Netflix or social media where social influencers spin fanciful stories and rumors for their own personal self gain. And, we are all riveted to the daily news where the progressive news media sow seeds of despair, nihilism and darkness. The Good News, the Word provides reassurance, hope and salvation.

Perhaps it is our own brokenness, co-dependence, projection and denial, approach avoidance that keep us from becoming the people the Lord created us to be. So, I see these times of extreme uncertainty as an opportunity to lead change, encourage and inspire one another, to do God’s will that He has for each of us, individually and collectively and fight the good fight, go the distance and keep the faith (1 Timothy 6:12). Although these times can appear very dark, sinister and frightening, we know how the story ends. We should be singing halleluiahs right now, here on earth as we will throughout all eternity in Heavenly places. Praise God, He is good.

Here are some more tips for leading in times of uncertainty. https://aboutchange.com/services/coaching/

Wright, N., T. (2008). Surprised by hope: Rethinking heaven, the resurrection, and the mission of the church. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishing.

Bridges, W. (1980). Transitions: Making sense of life’s changes. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

On Research Bias: God Loves The Bell Curve

Posted on by 28 Comments

In the academy(1), research is not always a collaborative experience, but rather, publishing is very competitive, somewhat like a World Series or Super Bowl championship game, but still different–extreme individualism rules! In competitive sports, as example, all season long, even the players on the same team compete amongst each other for a chance to start and be noticed.  This makes for a very interesting tension.  I call this “collaborative competition.” Likewise, one would assume that each research practitioner is working in concert with other researchers in a quest to uncover scientific truths, achieve superordinate goals(2); challenging assumptions, validate and confirm, thus, adding to the field of inquiry something new and important, a revelation or paradigm shift. The truth is, this rarely ever happens.  Yes, as many of you have pointed out in prior blog posts, some researchers do develop interesting insights that help validate existing studies but, most researchers simply focus on the results that merely reflect their own research bias. And… here is the rub, researchers don’t play well together. Unlike professional team sports, researchers are biased and prefer to play only with those that agree with their findings and perspectives, (Kuhn, 1991).  This is the very definition of group think and the conspiracy of mediocrity. Some scientists have observed that this particular pattern of interaction, working with only people that think alike, often leads to collaborative cheating (Ariely, 2012).

Indeed, philosopher Thomas Kuhn (1991) captures this interesting dynamic in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Paradigms. Research bias is the seeds of group think and functional fixedness(3). How can we break away from this academic echo chamber?  How and where can one find the truth? Unbiased researchers will challenge assumptions and carefully and precisely reconstruct an experiment or study to see if the results hold up over multiple trials? This is called construct validity. It rarely ever does (Lash, 1999). 

The epistemic challenge for researchers is to seek the Spirit of Truth without wavering or pandering to a particular group’s perspective or bias.  I believe, researchers, everyone really, tend to fall into one of two camps; 1.) group think (everyone thinks alike) or, 2.) seekers of the Truth. The later group respects the autonomy of the First Amendment, one that embraces deep-level diverse opinions, alternative perspectives and actively engaging in inspired conversations. The prior group shuts down independent thought and free speech. To illustrate this dynamic, picture the normal distribution bell curve. God loves the bell curve. Everything in God’s creation fits into the normal distribution. Take all the leaves on any tree as example. You will have a small percentage of very large leaves and a small percentage of very small even tiny leaves. Overall, the vast majority of leaves will fall into the middle of the bell curve, thus, normal distribution. But, group thinkers, want to draw a skewed curve, over representing a very small sample of the population. I’ll say it again, God loves the bell curve. Think about that profound statement. Sadly, many academics, those teaching in higher education institutions today, cluster together around group think and the functional fixedness of their own biases. They “kick out” and shame anyone that does not agree with their opinions and perspectives. This is perhaps why there is so much division between alternative perspectives on research or anything for that matter. 

Remember, God loves a bell curve. What does this mean? It means that the normal distribution represents the vast majority which fall in-between either/or thinking. This is what some observers might call the “moral majority” or, “independent”. From a biblical perspective, we might recognize this as more integral. It is indeed ironic that, so called progressives, those that hold a more radical group think perspectives, fit more neatly in the extreme pinch points (ends) of the bell curve. Yet, they will argue for “inclusion” which represents the average or, normal distribution. Another example would be advocating for radical changes in the Constitution–a “living document” perspective–while at the same time arguing for “impeachment” based on the original framers intent of the document. You can’t have it both ways unless, of course, you are a liberal progressive. Unfortunately, the constructivist’s narrow-minded narrative seems to gain more traction than the truth.  But, I believe people are smart and can see through this cruel ruse. Only through authentic, honest and open (AHO) inspired conversations can we have the opportunity to break free from the bondage of liberal progressive social-constructivism. We represent the next generation of research practitioners that are committed to seeking the truth.  What is your perspective?

Ariely, D. (2012). The honest truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyone–especially ourselves. New York: Harper Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1991). The structure of scientific revolutions. (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lash, S. (1999). Another modernity: A different rationality. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  1. A society or institution of distinguished scholars and artists or scientists that aims to promote and maintain standards in its particular field.
  2. In social psychology, superordinate goals are goals that are worth completing but require two or more social groups to cooperatively achieve.
  3. Functional Fixedness is a cognitive bias that limits a person to use an object only in the way it is traditionally used. A concept that rooted in Gestalt psychology,

The Platform for Children’s Books

Posted on by Leave a comment

Today, our children think they are not enough and they let society decide who they are (Westenberg, 2019). The current educational zeitgeist[1]sows seeds of moral, ethical and  emotional confusion.  This is worrisome because if your Truth is not biblical you will not be sustained and you will always be let down. Education at the youngest level, through reading, can help empower those that listen and encourage those who read. I am passionate about this because it is a platform so rarely used to empower young ones to know who they are. I work in a school setting and I am able to see the lies, nomenclature, social constructivism, moral relativism, post-modern, progressive perspectives teens believe and I feel that if they were spoken truth to at a younger age they would have a better foundation of who they are. Knowing who you are, your confidence, your self-esteem is important because it heavily influences people’s choices and decisions. It serves a motivational function by making it more or less likely that people will take care of themselves and explore their full potential (Oswalt, 2019).

And that my friends is why I am writing a children’s book to address youth suicide. As simple as a children’s book may be it provides a platform for parents to check in and ask tough questions like suicide. 

My goal with this book (book series) is to take complex issues and an ethically confused world and influencing social change and public opinion through an intergenerational children’s book series that aims to empower listeners and lead readers through the spirit of the truths of the Lord. 

From ages zero to five children learn the basic virtue of hope, will, and purpose” (McLeod, 2018).

In my opinion, children’s books have long shelf-life and legacy and are less likely to go out of style. This provides a platform to speak truth’s into the lives of generations to come and provide words the readers that guides conversation. Mixed methodology will allow me to use meta-data analysis to inform my etic (deductive) analysis and community praxis (action learning) to inform the emic (inductive) analysis and the narrative will be the written book narrative that expresses both the etic and emic. My books are intended to bridge the gap between believes and truths and formulate a discussion on epistemology. I plan on diving into a disciplined inquiry of children and trends from ages 5-15 and frameworks and systems that are flawed. This field is so tempted by the false and socially constructed narratives that my goal is to educate around tough subjects with biblical Truths. “That is the paradox of the epidemic: that in order to create one contagious movement, you often have to create many small movements first” (Gladwell, 2002). 

“A majority of the general population reads five books or less every year (67%). Broken down a little more, one-quarter of all adults don’t read any books at all (25%), while two out of five read anywhere between one and five books a year (42%). One-third of adults read five or more books a year (34%). Among the generations, Elders are the true bookworms—with about one-quarter reading more than 15 books a year (23%) (Kinnaman, 2015). 

Figure 1. Pie chart of statistics of why each demographic reads 2015. Adapted from ‘). The state of books and reading in a digital world’ (Kinnaman, 2015).

Figure 2. Bar graph of statistics of number of books each demographic reads per year in 2015. Adapted from ‘). The state of books and reading in a digital world’ (Kinnaman, 2015).

Thus the idea that children are soaking up their environment and are a byproduct of their society stems from the same concept organizational theorists.  As example, organizational theorists relate non-profit organizations as a direct reflection of the pressures and constraints presented by their environments. Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development states, “children constructs a mental model of the world. He disagreed with the idea that intelligence was a fixed trait, and regarded cognitive development as a process which occurs due to biological maturation and interaction with the environment (McLeod, 2018). Researcher Lev Vygotsky’s social development theory states that social interaction precedes development; consciousness and cognition are the end product of socialization and social behavior (Vygotsky, 1980). Erik Erikson’s stage theory articulates the importance of the formidable mind at a young age. “Erickson maintained that personality develops in a predetermined order through eight stages of psychosocial development, from infancy to adulthood.

We must be purposeful with words, actions, and truths we let our children hear at a young age. “A person’s words can be life-giving water; words of true wisdom are as refreshing as a bubbling brook” (Proverbs 18:4). Their behavior reflects their resource dependency, and risk of goal displacement and loss of autonomy if they are too dependent on one item (Worth, 2017, p. 68). 

This is my second masters and fourth degree from CCU and I am most excited to see where this thesis goes. I am currently working with a book editor and in the process of choosing an illustrator. My book, You are You, is expected to hit shelves and be available online in 2020.

Cheers,

Cassidy Burke

[1]spirit of time

 

References

Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference.Back Bay Books, 

Kinnaman, D. (2015). The state of books and reading in a digital world.Barna. Retrieved from https://www.barna.com/research/the-state-of-books-and-reading-in-a-digital-world/

McLeod, S. (2018). Erik Erickson’s stages of psychosocial development.  Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html

Oswalt, A. (2019). Why self-esteem is important and its dimensions. Mental Help. Retrieved from https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/why-self-esteem-is-important-and-its-dimensions/

Westenberg, K. (2019). Identity crisis: how to help your children know their worth. I Choose Brave. Retrieved from http://www.ichoosebrave.com/identity-crisis-how-to-help-your-children-know-their-worth/

Worth, M.  (2017).  Nonprofit Management:  Principles and Practices.  Los Angeles, California: Sage.  

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Truth & Grace: Learning How to Learn

Posted on by 7 Comments

“Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child.”

This very interesting and relevant quote by Dr. George Norlin, former president of the University of Colorado, is inscribed over the west entrance of the University’s library where I spent hundreds of hours deep in the library stacks studying late into the night. I have learned to navigate the depths of that library in the dark and with my eyes closed.  But when it came to learning and understanding truth, my eyes were then, as they are now, wide open.  Learners ask questions and challenge assumptions. Learners have a desire to understand alternative perspectives and become knowledgeable with both sides or perspectives of ideas and so called facts. One must understand another’s perspective to have a civil conversation let alone formidable debate.   Why do so many college students today simply reciting the boring one-sided opinions and lectures their professors pedantically preach to them? What ever happened to critical thinking, epistemology and disciplined inquiry?  What about the merits of considering alternative perspectives while seeking the truth?  What is truth and how do we know what we know?

Recently, astronaut Scott Kelly posted a Tweet paraphrasing Winston Churchill. Below is the entire quote in context;

“In War: Resolution,
In Defeat: Defiance,
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will.”

Kelly was attacked by some who considered the quote offensive.  So, Kelly back peddles and apologizes. He says something to the effect, “I need to get educated”.  Which brings me to the topic of this blog post, truth, grace and learning how to learn.   While I find nothing offensive with this quote, I am actually inspired by it, I am trying to understand how it might be offensive to some people? That’s an honest question. You see, I believe, words matter. However, there’s no question the truth can bite.  That is perhaps one reason why some people hide behind the safety of “political correctness” and postmodern relativism. It allows one to be wrong and still be right.  We are experiencing a division in perception of reality. Fortunately, truth and grace are interconnected, you can’t have one without the other.  What Kelly was responding to is the “pressure to conform” narrative, not truth and grace.  The political correct narrative, I believe, is part of the social constructivist agenda to rewrite history, not correct it nor to seek the truth. “Who knows only his own generation remaining always a child.”

If we lose the truth about our history, we lose our liberty. It is happening now at universities across America. Political correctness has crushed the spirit of truth and free speech.  This is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was so important to the Founders, it was first and foremost.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Why do so many people think history needs revision?  Perhaps it is because, for hundreds of years, churches and universities were the center of the community.  These were the places people gathered, church steeples marked the city centers. This is where people interacted with each other, learned from each other, shared stories and exchanged ideas, knowledge, goods and services in free markets. The city center or, market square were the very places truth and grace intersected as expressed through the First Amendment.  This idea, no longer fits with the current spirit of the time (zeitgeist).  Yes, there is a dark history of slavery. And slaveholding is a sin. Yet, many people falsely see religion as the source of legalism, bigotry and scientific ignorance. However, many more people, like me and perhaps you too, believe that faith in God expressly and implicitly guarantees individual liberty, justice and love. It is the very bases for social justice, human rights, democracy and equality; Jefferson referenced the Jewish and Christian God who made us free–“self evident”, he proclaimed as reflected in the Declaration of Independence. The Founders regarded religion as the duty of the independent and free individual to seek. The constitution assure this as an inalienable right and not a privilege to be tolerated. There’s a big difference.

Learning requires we enter a place I call the “epistemic gap”.  This is a place between the known and unknown, the natural and supernatural.  Stepping into the epistemic gap takes courage because it is more about learning than knowing. Cultivating a learning spirit requires humility.  We acknowledge the sins of our past and present and ask for redemption. Part of this “epistemic” journey involves understanding self in relation with God and His creations.  Thank God, we don’t all think alike.  This is a gift, not a curse.

Grace and truth’s perfect union can be cultivated in a community of diverse experiences and worldviews.  Truth and grace are integral and cannot be truly understood or experienced as an either/or concept.  Truth without grace breeds self-righteousness and legalism. Grace without truth breeds deception and moral compromise. The key to true intellectual and spiritual growth is to integrate these two qualities into life and learn how to learn all over again.

This is an honest question; how is the above quote offensive?  What are your thoughts?