TruthBites

Grace: Learning How to Learn

“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 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’ll get educated.  Which brings me to the topic of this blog post, 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. We are experiencing a division in perception of truth.  Grace and truth are interconnected, you can’t have one without the other.  What Kelly is responding to is a pressure to conform narrative, not the truth.  That narrative, I believe is the social constructivist agenda, that is, to rewrite history, not correct it nor to seek the truth.

If we lose our history, we lose our liberty. This is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was so important, 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 interacted, learned from each other, shared stories and exchanged goods and services in free markets. The city center and 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).   These days many people see religion as the source of legalism, bigotry and scientific ignorance. However, many more people believe that faith in God expressly and implicitly guarantees individual Liberty, justice and love. It is the very bases for human rights, democracy and American justice system; 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 a 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.  Part of this journey involves understanding self in relation with God and His creations.  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.  Grace and truth 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, imitating the Creator.

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

The Secular Sacred Divide

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Karl Marx

I am a Christian and a fiscal conservative independent thinker.  However, in these tumultuous times, I find it increasingly challenging to express my worldview openly to some of my liberal-left leaning friends and associates without being shamed by them for my conservative perspective.  It’s gotten worse recently I started experiencing disdainful scorn and self-righteous indignation.  As a Christian, I am mocked for being foolish and stupid. As a conservative, I am chastise and rebuked for my views on limited government, free market economics, poverty theory and social policy.  Have you noticed that thinking critically and having an honest alternative perspective is considered “offensive” and not tolerated by some people?  Have you too felt shunned either in face-to-face encounters or on social media?   I believe that we are missing an opportunity to experience community and the goodness that comes from developing intellectually and growing emotionally and spiritually. My liberal friends have drunk the kool aid of moral relativism where there is no truth, only different perspectives, yet, ironically, they cannot tolerate diverse worldviews.

How did we get here?

The deconstruction of everything sacred began with secularizing education a little over a hundred years ago. Thus, we see the beginnings of the secular/sacred divide and normalization of secular humanism. Accordingly, progressive postmodern dualism was ushered in shortly after the founding of scientific labs in Leipzig Germany around 1879, when Thomas H. Huxley organized a small group of German and American scientists, [primarily Gestalt psychologists] who sought to overthrow the cultural dominance of Christianity—particularly the intellectual / theological dominance of the Anglican Church, (Huxley’s grandson penned A Brave New World).  Their goal was to secularize society, replacing the Judeo-Christian worldview regarding the laws of nature and nature’s God, with a secular-humanist worldview that recognizes the existence of science alone, as observed in scientific labs. This biased perspective denies the apodictic (absolute) and self-evident Truths of the natural order of things and the Bible endowed by our Creator. Thus, public education today essentially advances a social constructivist agenda. Students are taught that they can rewrite history and socially construct their own realities. This is a lie! But, as I have stated earlier, they have drunk this kool aid and believe it.  Nevertheless, as secular humanists, Huxley and his advocates understood they were merely replacing one religion with another, for they described their goal as the establishment of the “church scientific.”  A search of the American Humanist Association reveals it is a tax exempt 501(c) (3) religious organization (americanhuminist.org retrieved on 3/14/2012). This has since been changed but the original intent hasn’t.  An example of the deconstruction of the spirit of truth and social construction of myth is illustrated in the hyperlink below. At the University of Colorado Boulder, for instance, in place of American Civics, students learn “the people’s history of the United States.”  http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html.

It is indeed ironic that is was Karl Marx who first said, “…religion is the opiate of the masses” but, it turns out liberal extremism / secular humanism and social constructivism appear to be the opiate of the masses.  What are your thoughts?  Please opine.

 

What is Truth?

Hello! Part of the purpose of the TruthBites blog is to understand and respect various worldviews within the context of our daily lives, the workplace, broader community and integration of faith, family and freedom.  We will explore the intersection between the known and unknown, natural and supernatural, the clash of worldviews and common-core values all cultures share in common.  So, diverse perspectives are welcome here.  Please demonstrate civility, dignity  and respect in your posts. Please join me in this journey of joint exploration–understanding self in relation with God and each other.

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, NIV).

Is there an overarching truth in this universe, or no truth that is absolute and irrefutably reliable?   Is truth relative? Is your truth different from my truth?  Do we really socially construct our own reality? What do you believe?

Words carry power. Words can edify, inspire and affirm. And words can also crush spirits, cause anguish, stir conflict and sow seeds of discord. One’s choice of words can therefore be a double edged sword. According to Calvan Exoo (2010, p. xvii), “those who own or control society’s ‘idea factories’ including mass media can use [words] to impose their own ideas on others.” This is the idea behind the social constructivist movement in education. As such, academics have used words to socially construct reality rather than pursue the truth. Students are taught what to think instead of how to think. It is unfortunately but in this current postmodern “moral relative” corporeality (meaning, of the body and not the spirit), words have little meaning when not connected with values or recognized apodictic (absolute) truths. However, words can also edify and educate producing emotionally and spiritually healthy interactions within and between groups (Scazzero 2012). Nevertheless, words are often used to distort the truth (Phillips & Gully, 2014). This tradition goes back long before the Chinese warrior/philosopher Sun Tzu illuminated the tribulations of the “bearer of bad news” or Machiavelli’s cruel and narcissistic analysis of politics and power (Sun Tzu, 2012; Machiavelli, 2011). The infamous line in a Few Good Men, “you can’t handle the truth,” rings true. In light of the current divisiveness in this country, why does the truth matter?