An Update

 I’m writing this after my first whole week back to work and the start of my wife’s return to work. As a result, it’s hard to find time to write or even devote processing power to writing something good.

The Boss at the new house. It’s been gradually changing with the chairs, gutter extensions and paint.

I try not to put junk or anything forced out there. As of late, my creativity has been going towards making the new house a home. As for my reading, it’s been memoirs from Chip and Joanna Gaines and Ben and Erin Napier, on top of various books on fixing stuff. 

My Bible study hasn’t been neglected. While off, I took advantage of a men’s class on Wednesday nights. Before it started, I would drop in on the Deaf Church’s Bible study.

It’s growing and thriving much more than when I co-taught it. It’s a relief; God doesn’t need me to save the world. He’ll get it done. 

This is good since our newborn Faith adds more work to our lives with her older, jealous brother. Especially now that we’re functionally single parents with our split shifts. 

I did read some theological books while off, like N.T Wright’s Revelation for Everyone. I’m still reflecting on that and the dark inner workings of humans. It’s not formed enough to write about yet. 

I’ve been thinking of how we like to bring some form of order or beauty into the world. So that’s how I’m thinking about the house.

It can be even more pretty and work better. 

The shed in the back with rotted particle board walls was reduced to a frame. In the middle of that, I saw potential. 

It will be a covered patio area where we can watch the kids play. I’ll redeem it with new life. 

The back porch is a battle of entropy. It needs to be rebuilt. Instead, I painted over the dry, bare wood. 

Pretty, but hiding the decay. Apply that where you will. 

The front of the house needs a touch-up. A garden is there, and paint is fading and peeling on the porch. I want to make it pop. 

The order is needed where the water settles. Solving the problem is a cross between being a fun challenge and an expensive pain because the foundation is in trouble. 

I’m reminded of Adam after he had to leave the Garden of Eden. He had to go into the untamed and tame it, cultivate it, live with it. 

That’s where my head is at on October 12th. Hopefully, I can conjure up some words that ramble less sooner rather than later. 

Dealing With Experts

 A big issue with information online is who people are citing as their sources. How do you deal with or think through that?

One of the books I reviewed earlier this year was Tactics by Greg Koukl from str.org. In it, there is a tactic to deal with the fallacy of expert witnesses. It’s called Rhodes Scholar.

Before I go on, use this against your own opinions before taking on others. 

Now appealing to scholarly opinion is a way to make a point. However, it’s not always right. People will weigh in outside their area of expertise, get facts wrong, or philosophical bias distorts their judgment. 

I can speak about the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God. I’m sure you could too. However, the weight of Dr. William Lane Craig’s thoughts on it outweighs ours in this regard…it’s his area of expertise. 

We could watch a trial on TV; however, Sam’s godmother would have a weightier opinion since she’s a lawyer. My best friend is a retired cop, and he would also have a more educated perspective. 

But in my area of expertise, I have the base of knowledge necessary. 

The key isn’t what their opinion is. It’s to find out why they have that opinion.

The first part informs, and the second educates. 

Ask: 

How did they (the expert cited) come to their conclusions? 

What are the specific facts?

Are there any biases distorting their assessment?

Then you can see if their conclusions are sound. What an expert believes isn’t as important as why they believe it.

Everyone has an opinion, but is it a well-informed one? Are your opinions well-informed? Or are they a product of your particular echo chamber?

False Omniscience

The internet gives us a sense of false omniscience. “Google it” is the rallying cry. Unfortunately, however, we don’t know as much as we think we do.

For one, Google feeds you specific data, and you can pay to have your page displayed higher up. On the other hand, the news only shows what sells ads, and there is a slant even then. Check out AllSides.com.

Facebook shows you what it thinks you’d like to see. Have you watched Social Dilemma? 

It’s eye-opening. 

Consider this: there are things my kids won’t know about unless I tell them. That’s why it’s said that freedom is one generation away from dying. 

Look at history itself. Markers are being torn down, ignored, rewritten. You can’t learn from it if you don’t know about it. That’s why I favor writing being preserved on paper so people can’t edit it later to reflect something different to hide what you thought then. 

Another thing about history—tell all of it, the good, the bad, and the ugly, with all the facts and human emotions and motivations behind it. 

I’ve often written about the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Psychology Today says, “The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area.”

Most people online fall under “I know everything” and say it with enough confidence to be believable. 

I usually find when I’m at my most confident, I tend to be wrong.

An example, HGTV has a lot of renovation and house flipping shows. I watch Good Bones and HomeTown, where their whole goal is to pretty up the decrepit and old homes in their respective cities. 

I look around at our new town of Lonoke, and it has a few run-down homes. I think we could do that. 

Then I watched Flipping 101 with Tarek El Moussa, and they talked about things I hadn’t considered. The things I didn’t know that I didn’t know. 

And I’m the guy that usually gets the wrong size parts when I need them for the house or car. One time I put the risers for the porch steps on wrong, making for a steep climb. 

With information, there’s what you know and then there’s what you think you know. That’s followed by what you know that you do not know. Then, finally, the things you didn’t know that you didn’t know. 

There are questions that we don’t even know we should be asking. 

I think we all have an unhealthy dose of Dunning-Kruger. How to combat it? 

Back to Psychology Today:

“To avoid falling prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect, people can honestly and routinely question their knowledge base and the conclusions they draw, rather than blindly accepting them. As David Dunning proposes, people can be their own devil’s advocates, by challenging themselves to probe how they might possibly be wrong.

Individuals could also escape the trap by seeking others whose expertise can help cover their own blind spots, such as turning to a colleague or friend for advice or constructive criticism. Continuing to study a specific subject will also bring one’s capacity into a clearer focus.

Do I have the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Ask yourself: Have you ever heard similar criticisms from different people in your life and ignored or discounted them? You may have experienced the Dunning-Kruger effect. Take a look at those areas in your life where you feel 100 percent confident. Acknowledge the possibility that you might not always be right, and you might need to acquire knowledge or practice more.

How do you fix the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Question what you know and pay attention to those who have different viewpoints. Seek feedback from people you can trust who you know are highly skilled in your area of interest. Be open to constructive criticism and resist the impulse to become defensive. Don’t pretend to know something you don’t. Make it a priority to continue learning and growing.”

What we feel doesn’t equate to what we think. So if we’re emotional, then we’re not as logical. And logic only works with correct information.

We’re in quite a pickle, aren’t we? But, of course, any fool can write something online. You’re reading my stuff, aren’t you?

“Personal Epistemology” or How Do You Know What You Know Part 2

 Last Monday we looked at the very dry area of how we can know what we know (epistemology). Why? The internet, social media, and media in general, are good at giving you memes and sound bites. No real knowledge, just information floating disconnected in your mind. And then more, and more, an information buffet. This is going to be one of the deepest posts I’ve written, important for developing a thoughtful Christianity.

Let’s dive deeper and ask ourselves the hard questions.

Five Areas of Worldview

Now you’re better prepared to examine the five areas of worldview: theological (God), axiological (ethics), anthropological (human nature), metaphysics (ultimate reality), and epistemology (knowledge). We’ve spent a lot of time working on that one.

Many never thought out their worldview, so let’s explore. Answer the questions for yourself.

How about theology, questions about deity.

• Does God exist, and if God exists, what would this Being be like?
• Can it be known?
• Has it spoken?

That’s the transcendent/supernatural, next we’ll look at physical reality.

These are the metaphysical questions, like:

• Does the universe have a beginning?
• Is the natural, material world all there is?
• Are miracles or the supernatural possible?

While we’re asking questions, let’s question our knowledge of knowledge, epistemology.

• What is knowledge?
• Can we know anything at all?
• Does objective truth exist?
• Can we trust our senses?
• What are the proper roles of faith, reason, and the experience of the senses in knowledge?
• Can we have knowledge of God?

Anthropological questions, questions of humanity, have you thought about them?

• What does it mean to be human?
• Where did humans come from?
• Do we possess dignity and value?
• What is our purpose and destiny in life?
• Do humans possess free will?
• Is there life after death?

Knowledge. Truth. God. Humanity. Life after death. This leads to exploring the ethical questions. A word of warning, how you answer these questions has to be systematically coherent. With that in mind…

• Are there objective moral values and duties that govern human conduct?
• What are they?
• Is morality simply relative to individuals, cultures, or historical periods?
• What is the good life?
• Who is really well off?
• How do I become a good person?
• What is beautiful?

Most people have never thought through these questions. Instead, they have a take on the world, just a feeling of the map of reality.

Our Take On Reality

Rory Miller uses what he calls BVME to explain it. That stands for Beliefs, Values, Morals, Ethics. Due to the model, he uses different definitions for morals and ethics.

These drive what people say, do, or are. 

• The lowest level is Beliefs, the things that you hold to be true. Often, they are subjective rather than objective. They’re our internal assumptions about the world-what philosopher Charles Taylor calls our social imaginary and it lays the foundation for everything we do or say.
• The next level up is Values. These are the more important things that we believe. Belief and values are deeply planted and mostly seen only in someone’s actions.
• Morals come from Values and are your gut feeling of right and wrong. A note: not morals in a philosophical sense, just for this model.
• Ethics are your personal code. They’re the general rules you make up to put your morals into words.

Why does it matter? The deeper into the BVME level, the harder it is to persuade. At the top level of ethics, you can have friendly disagreements. It’s the least personal and most conscious level where arguments aren’t seen as an attack on identity.

An argument at the lowest level – beliefs, is seen and felt as an attack on identity. Telling someone that one of their beliefs is wrong is perceived as telling them they’re stupid and will be seen as an attack. If anyone disagrees with you from the belief level, it’s impossible to convince them from a higher level.

Everything is about identity these days.

The key is in being able to explain yourself from a deeper level. That makes it easier for them to see things from your point of view. To find the depth of their beliefs the following questions shine: ‘What do you mean by…,’ and ‘how did you come to that conclusion?’

Ethics are easiest to alter. Rory used this as an example: ‘thou shall not kill’ is an ethic, based on the moral that killing is wrong, on the value that life is important, and the belief that life and death exist.

Morally it can be argued that there are different types of killing with different types of moral weights. At the value level, a number of people accept that there are some things more important than an individual human life.

When applying BVME to others, remember that it’s harder to make a change at the belief level. You can dig down to that level with questions, and then use leading questions to point out contradictions or attack the epistemology-how a person or society decides what’s true.

It can also be applied personally to change your capacity. The deeper you challenge your resistance, the more successful you will be. If you can track your hesitations down to the value level, you can establish clarity by working through things in advance.

What’s the point of all this?

To develop a thoughtful life. Though moderation is key, don’t just live to gain knowledge, or get so wrapped up in it that you don’t use it for others.

First, now that the foundation is in place, how can you start to lead a thoughtful life? It’s not by jumping into a sea of information, you have to follow a stream of information to it. Look at it broadly and deeply, from different angles and disciplines.

Ask the who, what, where, why, and how questions.

Don’t continually read (blasphemy!?), also reflect on the information you have. Read only what pertains to the purpose you’re pursuing, reading little so the quietness of your reflection isn’t interrupted.

The question I’ve asked myself is should I think broadly on a lot, or deeply on a little. I would answer, both. Think deeply on your chosen subject, and reach broadly in all the areas it touches.

Remember to rest, be able to defend a thesis and still play with a kid. Don’t let your study narrow you, but make you whole. The goal is to study to help others, not to study purely for the sake of study.

This is how I think deeply. What about your personal epistemology?