Necessary Assumptions(Part One)

     I have had a lot of time lately to think and read about the nature of reality. In that musing and reading, I have come across a lot of basic assumptions that I think most people believe, but don't really think about on a conscious level. These are things that cannot be proven, but to deny them is to render the pursuit of knowledge a pointless exercise. I want to spend some time talking about those assumptions, and why I think they are necessary as foundations for rational thought and knowledge. I am going to start with some basic assumptions about the nature of our existence and reality.
     First, we have to assume that we exist. This is the heart of what Descartes was getting at. "I think, therefore I am." We cannot prove our existence, but we have to assume it. Because we think we exist, we must assume that we really do exist. The alternative is that we don't exist, and if we don't exist, any thoughts we may have on reality are really quite pointless. If we don't exist, then there is no point to anything that follows.
     Second, we must assume that there is a objective reality external to and separate from our thoughts. It is possible that everything we perceive as reality is just a product of our very vivid imaginations, but if that is the case, then any quest to learn about the nature of that reality is really just an elaborate thought exercise. What you perceive to be a mountain, I could perceive to be an elephant, and if we are both truly living in our own little thought created bubble worlds, then we are both right. If that is the case, then any knowledge we gain about the world only applies to us, but it is a fundamental assumption that we are part of a larger objective reality. We reject the idea that gravity could change simply because I imagine it to be different. There is a reality that is universal to all of us. We may differ in our interpretations of that reality, but we have to assume that it does exist.
     Third, we have to assume that our senses are generally trustworthy. Everything we know about reality is filtered through our senses. Now, there can be exceptions to this rule, like a blind person's sense of sight, but as a general rule, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that the majority of what we see is real. Any other assumption is ultimately a fruitless exercise, because it causes our shared universal reality to be unknowable. Without reliable senses, we are right back to the problem of you see a a mountain where I see an elephant, but now it is entirely possible that we are both completely wrong, and there would be no reliable way to figure it out.
     So these are a few of the key assumptions about our existence and the nature of reality. Hopefully, you can see why these assumptions are necessary foundations to the pursuit of knowledge. Without these things, any knowledge we gain is either useless or pointless. I think it is useful to list these assumptions, because it establishes common ground in any discussion about the nature of reality.
    "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.  If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work." - 1 Corinthians 3:11-13

Always or Never

   What is a false dichotomy?  It sounds complicated, but really it is not.  A false dichotomy involves presenting someone with two choices, but the two choices are rigged in the presenter's favor.  The reason we call it a "false" dichotomy is that you really have more than just the options presented, but the presenter is tricking you into focusing on just those two options. By making you focus on just those two options, the presenter is trying to trick you into making a choice that is favorable to their point of view.

   So before I move on I want to explain how this trick can be so effective.  The first reason is fear.  Triggering fear makes it harder to think.  When you become afraid, you can only think in two terms, fight or flight.  So, oftentimes one of the two options in a false dichotomy is meant to trigger fear.  It makes it harder for you to think clearly.  The second reason is that it is easier to define yourself by what you are against.  By giving you two choices, the presenter can use what you are against to drive you toward the option the presenter wants you to pick.  A simple example would be me telling you, “Donate to my charity, or this group that you dislike will win.”  I am basically using the your fear or distaste for a certain group(lets call them Group X) to manipulate you into donating.  The truth is that I cannot prove that your donation will have any real effect on stopping the plans of Group X, and there may be better ways to accomplish your goal of stopping Group X without donating to me personally, but I am more likely to get a donation by drawing your attention away from these other options and keeping you focus on a me or them decision.  So why is this important to you as a Christian?  

   First, we must be careful not to do this.  Like it or not, we live in a complicated world, and we simply cannot simplify everything down to simple A or B choices.  Even something as simple as “Thou shall not kill”  can be very complicated.  In context, it is often interpreted as “Thou shall not murder”, which allows for justified killing in self defense, and as we have seen in recent events, different people can have very different ideas of what it takes to justify taking the life of another human being.  So wrapped up in a seemingly simple commandment we reasonably have everything from “Killing another person is always wrong.” to “You can kill another person if you feel like you are in danger.”  Just presenting two options out of that range would be grossly misleading at best.  What is worse, is that we can do this to ourselves.  When faced with a problem, we can fixate on there only being two options.  “God isn’t answering my prayers, he must be mad at me.” is the kind of logic that that happens when we put ourselves in a false dichotomy.  The two choices are God is mad at me or God isn’t mad at me and since God isn’t answering my prayers, he must be mad at me.  The option we miss is that some of the things we pray for are not in our own best interest, and God loves us enough to say no to those requests.

   Second, this is the kind of trick the world loves to use on unwary Christians.  “Look at all of these amazing things that scientific progress has brought.  Cars, computers, cellphones, and putting a man on the moon are just a few of the miracles of science.  Think of progress that could be made if we didn’t have all these silly religious superstitions holding us back.  When are you Christians going to stop holding us back, and get with the program?”  Sound familiar?  You either choose Science, or you choose God, easy choice right?  It is a lose/lose choice.  What the presenter is really trying to do is get you to renounce your faith, or keep it out of the public sphere.  This false dichotomy has largely banished the discussion of the Gospel from large parts of our culture.  There are plenty of sincere followers of Christ who also practice Science without hesitation.  After all, if God created this world, and the Scientific Method is hands down the best tool we have come up for understanding the world, why would we use anything less than the best tools available to explore the wonders that God has made?

   There are times when there really are only two choices.  For example, you either love God above everything else, or you don’t.  The problem comes when we make unwise choices because we don’t look at all of our options.  The answer is to seek to see the world the way God’s sees it.  We should try to see things from God point of view, and to present that point of view to others.

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” - Matthew 7:7-8

The Measure of a Disciple

   When you hear the word love, what comes to your mind.  Romance?  Sacrifice?  Brotherhood?  Maybe something else?  To me, loving another means to willingly place the wants and needs of another ahead of our own wants and needs.  I choose this definition, because I believe it best captures all of the aspects we know as love.

   First, love must be willing.  If someone comes up and takes my lunch away, I may tell myself that they need it more than I do, but at the heart of it, I did not give my lunch away willingly.  I do not think that anyone would consider my act toward the bully to be an act of love.  Likewise, if someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to worship God, I do not think anyone would consider my worship to be an act of love.  Thus, a key requirement of love is that the act must be voluntary.  The importance of this is that God created us to love him, and he knows that to force us to love him would make our worship invalid.  Thus, God treads very carefully in this area.  He wants us to love him, and if he reveals himself to us in full, that might destroy our free will, and with it, our ability to love.

   Second, love is about priorities.  This is what really separates love from like.  For someone I like, I might hang out with them, but I don’t put their needs above mine.  For someone I love, the inconvenience to me ceases to matter.  This is why the word sacrifice is related to love.  If I had a single meal, I might offer to share some of it with someone I liked, but for love, I would give it away in full.

   Third, love is an action.  To love someone takes more than just the desire to help them.  As much as I tell myself that I love my family, there are days when that is simply not true.  In deed, I put my own needs ahead of theirs.  As much as I care for them, I fail to love them as I should.  Thankfully, they forgive me, which is in itself an act of love toward me, but that does not change the fact that in my selfishness I chose to love myself over them.

   Our ability to love God and others is the one thing that marks our maturity as followers of Christ.  The greatest two commandments center around love (Matthew 22:36-40), and Paul talks at great length about how love must be the motive behind everything we do in the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 13).  Loving others is at the center of everything it means to be a Christian, and that means we must first understand that love with a willing act of putting another’s wants or needs ahead of our own not just in words, but in action as well.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” -John 13:34-35

Teaching vs Indoctrination

   There is this idea out there that teaching your religious beliefs to your children is abusive and manipulative.  The idea goes that if you were to lock up an adult and indoctrinate them against their will, it would be unacceptable torture.  Since children are not able to leave home, parents who force their religious beliefs on their children are indoctrinating them against their will, and thus abusing their children.  It makes for a great internet slogan, but unfortunately, there are several flaws with this line of thinking.

   First, as much as it sounds like a bad thing, good parenting is about indoctrination.  Imagine for a second you are a 3 year old child who is completely innocent to the world.  Now, you see a bright blue light in the kitchen.  It is so pretty, you want to grab it and keep it, but it just happens to be a burner on a stove that will cause 3rd degree burns.  In this situation, the proper role of a parent is twofold.  Protect the curious three year old from the consequences of their actions until they have been indoctrinated into the dangers of hot stoves.  Think about how many of the safety lessons you have learned in life.  You always teach the safety part first, “Don’t touch”.  The why part, “Because it will burn you.”, always comes later.  Which that in mind, which is more abusive, using coercive force to indoctrinate a child into the idea that touching fire is bad, or letting the child touch the fire and learn the hard lesson for themselves?

   Second, let us assume for argument’s sake that the premise is correct, and forcefully indoctrinating children with religious ideas is wrong.  What exactly would you teach children?  What would a list of approved non-religious things that you can teach your kids look like?  If you have to avoid religion or religiously influenced ideas, then that list would be very short, because, right and wrong are inherently religious concepts.  We all know that murder is wrong, but take a moment to think about why murder is wrong.  As a Christian, I immediately think of the ten commandments. Not teaching religious ideas to kids could arguable prevent parents from teaching their kids that murder is wrong, but more importantly, parents would no longer be able to give your kids a coherent explanation of why murder is wrong.  Even explaining that you should not murder because it is against the law falls afoul of religion.  As a Christian, following the just laws of the nation we reside in is one of the moral duties we are given.

   So, as Christians, I feel we can safely ignore the kind of shallow minded thinking that drives this idea.  What we have here is really an attempt to shame Christian parents into following more worldly ways of parenting.  We are called as Christians and parents to follow a higher standard, and that means ignoring foolishness like this, and focusing on our task of raising Godly children who love Jesus with their hearts, minds, and bodies.

“Fathers(or parents), do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” - Ephesians 6:4