Moving closer to Truth

Science classes in grade school taught a distilled version of the "scientific method" which consisted of a few steps:

1. Generate hypothesis
2. Test hypothesis
3. Evaluate results
4. Hypothesis confirmed or rejected
5. Repeat

The thing I have forgotten about is that in science, one moves closer to Truth by seeking evidence that is contrary to the hypothesis.


This is often the exact opposite in the world of religion.  We tend to think we are moving closer to Truth by seeking evidence that supports our hypothesis.  That is we have an experience then we look for other things to support our interpretation of that experience.  Protestant Christians generally seek out some supportive Scripture.  


What we Christians are not very good at is entertaining and seeing evidence to the contrary to our claims.  Much of our time is constantly supplying evidence that only supports our claims.    


Perhaps a way to move closer to the way non-theists see the world is to begin to invert the way we seek to "justify" Truth.  Instead of constantly giving more and more supportive "evidence" to a truth claim, what would it look like to seek out contrary evidence? 


What would it look like to see this evidence to the contrary and use that evidence as a starting place for a conversation?  


Jesus was a guy who provided evidence to the contrary understanding of the truth claims of the religious authorities of his day.  


"God says do not work on the Sabbath." - Truth claim of authorities


"Should we not pull our donkey out of the ditch and save it's life even on the Sabbath?" - evidence to the contrary by Jesus.


"Well perhaps we do not sully understand God's desires for Sabbath." - responsible response of authorities 


"Jesus is an a-hole and we should kill this guy." - popular response of authorities

Did Gandhi say that?

My friend Adam, passed along to me an article from the NY Times entitled "Falser Words Were Never Spoken."  While I can be mistaken, this article comments on how some quotes of famous people are sometimes not historically stated by the people they are credited to.  


Here is an excerpt towards the end of the article to give you a synopsis:


Thoreau, Gandhi, Mandela — it’s easy to see why their words and ideas have been massaged into gauzy slogans. They were inspirational figures, dreamers of beautiful dreams. But what goes missing in the slogans is that they were also sober, steely men. Each of them knew that thoroughgoing change, whether personal or social, involves humility and sacrifice, and that the effort to change oneself or the world always exacts a price.


Gandhi is credited with a variation of the quote "you must be the change you wish to see in the world."  For those of you who do not know, there is no historical evidence that he stated this line.  


Some might be jaded (perhaps like the author of the Times article sounds to be) that since the line was not actually of the source that it is credited to, it looses a great deal of credibility.  


This is also what many have "against" the words of Jesus in the Bible.  We do not know for certain if Jesus actually stated each and every word that is in red in the Bible.  


Likewise with the apostle Paul who is credited for writing letters he did not pen.  


This line is a wonderful example of the difference in reading for truth (historicity) and reading for Truth (Myth).  


If we were reading for truth, then yes, the quote is not true.  It is not from Gandhi.  It is not true.  


If we are reading for Truth, then yes, the quote if True.  It does not matter if Gandhi stated it or not.  We really much be the change if we want the world to change.  


Gandhi might not have said it.  There might not have been an arc built by Noah. There might not have been an Odysseus tied to mast of a ship.  There might not have been a virgin birth of Jesus.  There might not even be a bodily resurrection of Christ.  That does not make the stories/Myths any less True.  


Truth is more than facts.


Facts do not move people to action (no one supports a child in Africa after hearing the life expectancy of children, which is why they do not use them on the commercials late at night).  


Facts do not transform people (if so then global warming would be a non-issue now).


Facts only support our position and the other person's facts are wrong (which is why MSNBC and FOX each have access to their own set of 'facts' on the government).


Facts do not change the world.


You do. 


Just like Gandhi said.  

Reality takes a hit in the form of Rhubarb

There are many people who know the difference between a fruit and vegetable, but I am not one of them.  So, according to the 'googles' the difference between a fruit and a vegetable is:

Rhubarb (AKA - Threat to truth and reality)

"A fruit is actually the sweet, ripened ovary or ovaries of a seed-bearing plant. A vegetable, in contrast, is an herbaceous plant cultivated for an edible part (seeds, roots, stems, leaves, bulbs, tubers, or nonsweet fruits). So, to be really nitpicky, a fruit could be a vegetable, but a vegetable could not be a fruit."

So that could not be clearer.  There are things which are categorically a fruit and there are things that are categorically a vegetable.  There are plants such as tomatoes, peppers, and peapods that seem to be vegetables by the way they are organized in the store but even these, by definition, are fruits (as weird as it sounds even to me).  

Well, if rhubarb did not mess up enough with it getting into the "pie business", Rhubarb is on a tear again messing up reality as we know it!

According to the Wikipedia entry page:

"Rhubarb is usually considered to be a vegetable; however, in the United States, a New York court decided in 1947 that since it was used in the United States as a fruit it was to be counted as a fruit for the purposes of regulations and duties. A side effect was a reduction in taxes paid.^[1]"  

The jig is up Rhubarb!  We live in a Black and White world in which reality is clearly defined!  You cannot be scientifically classified as one thing and then because of cultural influences and social norms and economics   and other non-scientific forces be defined as something else!  You are either a vegetable or a fruit, there is no gray area on this.  Pick a team.  And don't play that "well-one-culture-says-I-am-a-fruit-and-other-cultures-define-me-as-a-vegetable-and-so-it-is-a-bit-relative" card.  We can see right through that.  

Because you see, rhubarb, if you are able to skirt definitions and highlight a relative aspect of reality then you could very well cause a cascading effect to reality.

And before you know it, we will live in world in which we cannot know the speed AND location of something at the same time or light can be both a wave AND a particle or that two particles even when separated by a great distance will begin to behave in the same way.

You see rhubarb, you are messing with reality here when you define universal definitions.  So even if defy clear definition, for the love of all that is good, at least stay out of our pie.  

Another support to the influences on culture to determine truth

I believe there are universal truths in the world.  In fact it seems rather silly to think that someone could hold that there are no universal truths, but some modernists misunderstand post-moderns.

However, the scope of what is universal truth seems to becoming narrower and narrower.  Take a look at this 3 minute video on the placebo effect which I think makes the point rather well.