November 26, 2012
-
How To Wear Rose-Tinted Glasses
Originally posted June 04, 2009 on my other account, NaitoOfNarnia. [Additional content added and original content minor-ly edited January 19, 2010.]
I SPY WITH MY MENTAL EYE…
For many of us around Xanga, the debates between Christians and non-Christians (even Christians and Christians) about the validity of the Bible and proof about God and whether the Bible is more of a moral story book, biography/autobiography, historical document or all of the above (and more) has been raging on with a steadily increasing rate over the last few years I have noticed (keep in mind this is my second Xanga account…I’ve been around for some time). While I have learned a great deal about the Bible and fully trust in its validity in every way, I am no formal Bible scholar. Nor am I a trained logic user (but I do try with a fair amount of success, I think). And there-in lies my point. I just made an assessment of my logic skills. It is an opinion about my personal ability to debate with sound logical reasoning. Many others with whom I’ve debated may think differently, though. The question that might arise then is how I came to any such idea about how good my skills are.Well, there must be a standard. An unchanging, unbiased scale on which I can measure my performance.
But I have a confession to make: I don’t really know what that scale is. As I said, I’ve never taken any lessons in formal logic or debate. What I have learned I have gleaned off of those clearly smarter than me here on Xanga or elsewhere; those who have a natural ability to see an issue and examine it piece by piece. (Honestly, I would have a much easier time putting together a 5000-piece 3-D puzzle – and I did put a 3-D puzzle together once and it was so much fun.) So my next thought is this: How can I truly be sure of the accuracy of my assessment of my skills at logic and debate unless I have a standard against which to measure my skills?
What I have basically done is…
1) observe myself (perception)
2) make a statement based off that observation (opinion)
3) and then form a conclusion about it (truth…that is, “it” being what really is the case regardless what I observe or think).DEFINE THAT
Perception is how we see things in the world. It is influenced by what you believe is real and how things should be. And in turn, that perception influences how we continue to see what is there before us. It might be said that it is the wheel that propels itself. There are other factors which affect perception, but for now I will keep it at that.
An opinion is a statement about what we prefer or think about something. It is directly influenced by our perceptions and may or may not be consequential.
And truth is what really is. Truth is not affected by any other outside force. It exists of itself and does not change. Nor can truth be anything else but what it is.The argument comes down to defining what is true. But to do so, we must be able to make a clear discernment of what is real versus what is not. And that becomes a difficult task when we are all too often coming to the discussion table with a variety of perceptions, which translates into a collection of preset opinions which greatly interfere with assessing the truth as it really is.
LOGIC TEST REMIX: THE ELEPHANT WORE GLASSES
To try to illustrate (and please bear with me as I try to make this clear), I’ll explain it like this…
Let’s say we all come to this singular point, a simple post stuck in the ground. Let’s say that prior to anyone’s arrival, the post is, indeed, white. Before anyone could offer their input, the post is white and that is the truth of the matter. It was white from the Beginning.So then four of us arrive at the post and relatively at the same time. All four of us are wearing glasses.
One with clear, untinted lenses (we’ll call him “Clear”); one with cracked lenses (“Cracked”); one with red-tinted lenses (she will be “Rosa”); and lastly, one with glasses that has one red and one blue lens (“Sir Mixed”, or “Mix” for short).From the very beginning, those of us simply observing this gathering can see naturally that the four of us with glasses on are going to see things differently from one another.
So for this illustration, the question is proposed: what color is the post?
The glasses are our “perception”, and technically, we are “oblivious” to our own perception…we are “unaware” of the glasses we wear.
The first to speak up is Clear and proposes that the post is white.
The next to speak Cracked. Due to the nature of light refracting through multi-surfaced glass, he sees the color spectrum as a rainbow and says that the post is all the colors of the rainbow at the same time.
Scoffing, the third one to speak Rosa and, of course, she says the post is red.
Lastly, as you can guess, Mix says, with a 1960s drawl, the post is purple (red + blue).
How then can we determine which one of the four is right with each one having different opinions about what the truth of the post is? The obvious answer would be to get everyone to remove their glasses to have the clearest possible perspective – to see the post as it really is. But that’s not likely to happen.
One such way would be to blind fold the four, paint the post a certain color, tell the four what color the post is now, and then turn them back to observe the post. Clearly, the one who states the right color would be the one with the right perception. But the problem in proving such a thing is that all too often we are so convinced of what we think is true that we don’t consider that just maybe our perception is off. That maybe we’re looking at things in the wrong way. We tend to naturally think we have a clear picture, even when the facts don’t add up to what we believe we see.
FOGGY VISION
On that note, the problem comes down to failing to recognize that opinions, which both influence and are influenced by our perceptions, do not equal the truth. That is not to say that an opinion cannot also agree with what is true, but they are not the same thing. Remember, that post was white to begin with, independent of any observer’s perception or statement about what color they believed the post to be. We assume that our perception of reality is equal to reality, unaware that we might just have tinted or broken glasses. And sadly, even when the truth is tested – such as checking the the resulting opinions against the truth after changing the color of the post – many people still fail to realize they have judged reality against their own preset ideas of what reality should be rather than examining reality as it is. [Such as is said in Proverbs: "Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions" (18:2, NLT).]As I mentioned twice before, truth is what is. It cannot be affected by outside forces. It exists unto itself and does not change. Even though the color of the post changed, the truth is that the post was white and is now a different color. If no amount of white paint remains then that post cannot be both the new color and white. If the post had some bits of white that remained unpainted, then it is a bit white and mostly the new color. But in any case, if, for instance, green was never used on the post, at any time – before, during, or after being painted - it would be a lie to say that the post was green. Because that was never the case, thus the truth is and was that the post was never green.
STEP TO IT
With that (exceedingly) stated, no amount of opinions can alter the truth. Nor can an opinion be the truth, itself. Opinions, at best, can only refer to the truth. (And for the record, this is not neglecting that some opinions are inconsequential, such as having a preference about one’s favorite color or sports team and saying “this is the best”…). So what is left is that we must examine the evidence and take the claims made in defense of what is stated as true and test it. There must be a standard.Let’s say that we had a card that listed all the colors (and their respective names) of the rainbow. This was the official standard against which all other records were made. If we brought that card up to the post and checked to see which block of color the post matched up with, we would all have to agree that the post was white (or, whatever color it was later changed to). Before bringing out that standard, each person had a perception of the post. If there was no standard, no foundation on which to assert the true color, then each person would have been equally right. Because from their point of view, they simply saw a different color. The post could have been clear and there would have been no right or wrong answer even if they had all said the same thing they did as when the post was white. But because there is a standard – a true, defined and specific color – to say anything different would be wrong. Perceptions and opinions would be null and void.
I’m going to offer another example to explain my point in case my last one didn’t quite make sense.
Take a ruler. Your traditional (American) foot-long ruler. A ruler has 12-inches; an inch being the distance from point A to point B and any time we refer to an inch it is always the same distance between points A and B. And each inch is, in turn, divided into equal fractional spaces, and so on. Three rulers laid end to end would equal a “yard”.How do we know this? Well, for one, long ago someone developed a standard. It has been speculated that the length of a foot was actually based on King Henry I’s foot! And the length of an inch was the average size of three men’s thumbs, all of whom were of different sizes. However (in)accurate these methods were, the short story is that there was no true widespread standard (as it was also speculated that other kings may have imposed their foot for the standard). But over time, as things went on, there did eventually become an agreed upon standard for what yard really was regardless of who was around and where you were. Point A to point B was the same distance wherever you went any time you mentioned a “yard”.
But suppose that never happened. Suppose I said that my land extends 50 yards in all directions from my house. Let’s say that my opinion of a yard is what a yard actually is today (but we’re pretending no standard exists for a moment). But then my neighbor comes along with a disagreement. Not with the amount of yards, but with the actual length of what a yard is! Fifty yards could extend far less distance in his mind. If there was no standard on which to judge the amount of distance a yard occupies, who’s to say who is right?
Before anyone can truly say what something is (that is, to make reference to truth), that something must already exist prior to the claim. If no standard for a yard exists, then even with the word ”yard” in use, it has no meaning other than to suggest a measurement of distance. But then one could use almost any made up word to express a particular (or random) distance and it would have equally no meaning. Rather, the word “yard”, in terms of measuring point A to B, must have a specific meaning. And anywhere you go, a yard will mean the same thing. (It’s also true that some words carry more than one meaning at the same time. This might sound contradictory when I said that things cannot be truly one thing and another at the same time. However, in this example, we must also allow for context. If we are talking about measurements, a yard is a distance. If we are talking about a particular location, a yard is typically a land mass of grass in front of or behind someone’s house.)
THAT’S WHAT I SAID
So it is that any time we debate about faith/religion, politics or other hot-topic matters, we are all too often arguing for what we at least think is the truth. That which is and has been so since before the debate started. If we argue about right and wrong, good and bad, real and fake, yet have no standard that provides timeless definitions for such things, we’re arguing nonsense and speaking gibberish.Now, as I said, I am no logical expert here. Certainly anyone with greater skill can see that I probably have some holes in my presentation here. But I would hope you can see my intended goal and that I did not make too many leaps. While one can clearly not go forward by jumping backwards or to the side, I do believe that I at least made forward leaps as I connected point A to point B…and maybe accidentally skipped point C…as I sought to reach point D.
My ultimate point here is that all too often, many people, not just here on Xanga, are coming to the debate table concerning the Bible with prefabricated ideas about the Bible without instead investigating the Bible based on its own claims. This includes not examining the intended audience for which each book was originally meant for, the writing style, the known history (and a great many of the books of the Bible make clear references to historical events, holidays, leaders and known regions back in that day, many of which we have identified despite being known as something different in today’s age), intended message, and other factors. This is a grave error on the part of many who dismiss the Bible as authoritative.
If a man is suspected of a crime and gives his alibi, then the only sure way to check the validity of his statement is to check out his story against what really happened. So why do so few give the Bible the same benefit of the doubt?
Paul said it quite well, “Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:21-23, NLT).
