I am a Christian physician-scientist. How can I help promote truth in this post-truth era? An important text for me is John 18:37… “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” So many churches are not in the side of truth. Truth in science, in medicine, in journalism, in history, in law, in justice and in following Jesus. Praying every day. Can I be helpful through Biologos? Does Dr. Collins have a plan? An educational program to help people objectively learn to discern the truth? Can I help?
4 Likes
Great that you have the will to promote truth. That is not always easy and may come with a price to pay.
I may be a bit cynical about the capability of humans to be able to see, want or accept the truth but there are multiple reasons why ‘alternate truths’ may be more attractive or persuasive than the real truth, even among people who think they are believers and followers of Jesus (on the side of Truth). Many err honestly, believing they promote and protect truth although what they think is ‘truth’ is actually a misconception.
We are not robots that make logical conclusions based on hard facts. We are emotional, social creatures wired to live rather than seek the real truth. We accept what we hear from the people we trust without asking justification and instinctively reject claims that threat the stability of our worldview. We see and welcome pieces of information that seem to support our worldview but skip or downplay those pieces that do not fit well to our theories.
I have been told that novel interpretations need to be told wisely. Information that somehow threatens, or is against the worldview of the receiver needs to be supported with many facts and need to be told in a way that the person can listen.
It should be told with simple words so that the receiver can focus on the matter and not to trying to understand strange words or an outpouring of too many words.
It is wise to recognize humbly that also our own understanding and worldview includes pieces that may be false or twisted. The promotion of truth includes our own strive towards understanding better what is truth, not just telling to others what we believe is truth.
Search truth, pray wisdom and humility, and never expect that others will accept the real truth easily. God bless your journey.
4 Likes
Unfortunately that is as much a case of faith , trust and belief as Faith in God.
There is a “view” that comes with Science about the existence of “right and Wrong” Differences of opinion are only encouraged until a concensus has been reached as to which view is the right one. From then on, deviation is discouraged until, or unless the alternative becomes so overwhelming to become the" “correct” view
Faith and religion are not so rigid. The “personal” view is encouraged (usually)
I am surprised that you would include journalism in you ideals. Journalists have their own agenda which includes “spinning” the facts to fit their view or sensationalism.
“History is written by the victors” is a sad truth
“The law is an Ass” is another sad truth.
The net result is that we cannot dictate what people must or must not accept and we also need to have a more flexible understanding of “truth” that transcends the Scientific or pragmatic understanding.
Can you help?
It depends on whether you want to “teach” or not.
There are too many Teachers on this forum already.
Richard
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Maybe it would be better to teach objective methods in evaluating evidence.
How do we best teach how to discern and to weigh what is and is not reliable evidence in law, history, science, medicine, advertising, journalism, mathematics, etc.,etc.? With our goal: to be people of the truth.
In the post-truth era, we start with the conclusions we are literally led to believe - conclusions that resonate with our biases; and evidence is cherry-picked for us, reinforced on social media, and supported by massive amounts of money. How do we teach the next generation to turn this approach upside-down: to start with reproducible and objective facts, and the to let the facts lead us to whatever conclusion is most likely true? I think that is our job as Christians who are scientists. Or historians, journalists, lawyers, mathematicians, etc.
1 Like
Thanks for your post. Dr. Collins is not terribly active on Biologos but we recently have a new president and CEO so it will be interesting to see where she leads us. Dr. Collins latest book, however, may be helpful to read as he addresses some of the issues you raised.
Ultimately, I think science does well at sticking to truth when the science is done well. Science values accuracy and objectivity, without regard to sex, creed, or racial differences. Of course, there is then the ethical aspect that faith speaks to which science cannot address. This intersection makes organizations like Biologos important.
2 Likes
Thank you Phil.
Just to be sure, you aren’t saying the accuracy and objectivity in science occurs without regard to sex? Sex affects many things, objectively, in biology.
And for Richard: quite often, history is written by those who have lost, or will lose. Dozens of examples come immediately to mind from secular history; and it is more often true than not in the Biblical histories and prophets. So I wouldn’t be dismissive of accurate history. I know what you have written is a common sophomoric saying these days, but I actually don’t think it is true. We still need to be people of the truth, and the Bible provides lots of examples.
I’m also not certain that Moses would have agreed that the law (or justice) is an Ass. Or that God would.
Just my perspective; and I’m sorry to disagree.
But thank you for your thoughts!
Do not apologise for something that is not wrong.
It was more like a caution that an assertion, as with journalism and any profession there are good and bad examples. The problem is more with assertiveness than with specific areas of knowledge or perspective. This idea of Truth being specific and constant is one i have been contesting for a long time. It is something encouraged in science but less so in religion (although there are those who claim certitude and precision in religion)
As I see it, we do well to consider perspective and personal understanding before making assertions or “ruling” on what might be right or wrong
But that is my view (of course)
Richard
1 Like
Ah now see Richard
Here is one of your more excellent posts that i am inspired by.
Despite our scientific differences, i agree with this one and thank you for it😃
1 Like
Thank you Richard. I may not have been clear.
What I’m suggesting is a vision for teaching a method of thought, asking, “What is the evidence?”; and, “How strong is the evidence?”
Let’s say, someone named Josh Josephson comes to my house and shoots me and takes all my possessions. That is the absolute truth of the matter.
A lawyer will make the case that someone else did it. How strong is the evidence?
A scientist will testify that the DNA evidence was corrupted. How strong is the evidence?
A journalist will argue that I’m part of a political movement that opposes the emperor, that I had it coming, and people should go to the court and protest against Josh’s trial. What is the evidence that that’s the right thing to do?
A historian will argue that there is a role for vigilante justice, and cite manipulated historical scenarios. How solid is the evidence?
Marketers will advertise a web site selling Josh Josephson gear, creating a movement of people fabricating his life story and making him a hero. The movement gains a huge social media presence, and is used to promote the election of candidates who support Josh. What is the evidence that it is real?
Etc., etc… The truth doesn’t change. But do you see that in our post-truth era, the truth becomes irrelevant and relative. What I’m suggesting is that we give the next generation the tools to question and to evaluate the evidence in each discipline. That’s all.
A vision looking forward, not back. A vision: light in the darkness. A vision in which our best to redeem and courageously to defend and to support what is true.
Why? John 18:37.
Does BioLogos have vision and courage to be a light to the world?
Thanks,
Ben
Sorry, I was probably unclear and imprecise. Of course, I don’t claim to be either a scientist or professional writer! 
What I meant was the sex or gender of the scientist does not matter when the the results of their work is evaluated. It is gender neutral as to whether they report their findings.
1 Like
Biologos just seeks to promote understanding and acceptance of evolution in the evangelical community. The narrow scope and focus is essential for a number of reasons. A broad base of agreement and cooperation is a big reason. Go outside that focus and opinions begin to diverge quite a bit. Count on Biologos to stand on that front in the war for truth, but we must leave it to others to fight the war on other issues.
1 Like
Three truths about truth in addition to the one that you have already quoted:
First, God’s Word is truth–
John 17:17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
Next, Jesus is Truth embodied–
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Finally, the Holy Spirit guides us in understanding truth:
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.
The Bible is God speaking to us, so it is pure truth. Of course, there are truths that are not in scripture, such as "Joe Biden was the 46th president of the United States. But if there is anything that is contrary to scripture, it is not truth.
Just curious–why are you asking this question on BioLogos?
Truth is kind of a thing for us here. And even in the U.S. here there is still a remnant of religious folks that remain stubbornly interested in it. We strive to remain an online place where such people can still gather, listen, learn, and share - as many of us do.
That said, maybe @Isaiah59 will give his answer since I don’t know what his motivation was. But I can at least comment on what keeps me around here!
2 Likes
Sounds like great aspirations. But it depends on “what truth” you think you are espousing. The fields you list are broad and filled with subcultures of their own. I am not saying there is no truth. There are areas that are important, but just as often, we have to “agree to disagree” or grant the other person their perspective.
P.S. Just saw this comment of yours—“A historian will argue that there is a role for vigilante justice, and cite manipulated historical scenarios. How solid is the evidence?”
That does not sound like the work of an historian. An historian researches, analyzes, interprets…but when it comes to advocating for something like vigilante justice, I would say that has crossed into other fields, maybe for good reason, but stilll—. And so, your question remains: what is truth?
1 Like
Mervin et al, thank you all for your comments and the additional verses (John is packed with them, yes).
I apologize for my lack of clarity.
Each discipline (at least those listed) has a tested, tried and true method for deciding what is most likely to be true.
Yes, each has some uncertainty, following the thinking of the Rev. Bayes. But what is most likely to be true.
This is true for science and medicine, but also for history (trust me: there really is a rigorous approach to historiography), law, journalism etc.
The problem I think we all need to address is this: quite deliberately, the American populace has been encouraged to start with conclusions. “Evolution contradicts the Bible” “The defendant must be innocent, and the trial political” “”The news outlet or anchor just makes up stories without good evidence””There is more autism, so vaccines must be the reason”, etc etc.etc.
And in fact, actually following objective methods to arrive at what is most likely true in each case is mocked. It feels good just to assume your biases are right, and to look for anything that supports them. Not just in science: other disciplines as well.
And, of course, this pervasive problem leads to cynicism, perpetuating the cycle of the post-truth culture.
But as Christians, we are very specifically called to be those “on the side of truth.”
So I think, beginning with science, the resistance to the father of lies should begin with us Christians.
Systematically; Didactically; By example; With courage. Each of us takes up our cross and stands up for the objective process, rather than starting with a conclusion that makes a person feel as though his/her biases are confirmed.
That is the reason I have written what I have written.
Is this the wrong place? What is the right place?
Thanks,
Ben
2 Likes
I don’t think there is a wrong place to be on the side of truth. Though, there could be wrong contexts to be really verbal or aggressive about it (but not here I should hope!). The problem for so many though is one of the following two ditches: on one side I assume that I’m already in possession of all truth and everybody else just needs to shut up and listen. Much of our society froths in that ditch - all mouths and no ears. And the other ditch: Nobody has any real truth, and it’s all just subjective opinion anyway so therefore anybody’s opinion is as good as another’s and nobody should tell me which way to think. Some languish in that ditch and give equal (wasted) time to ‘flat-earth’ types as they do to experts who really know what they’re talking about. As long as we can steer clear of both ditches here - then we can have good conversation!
4 Likes
A ditch full of mouths . . . .
ewwww.
Thank you all.
To clarify: what I have been talking about is methods. Each discipline has a validated set of methods for arriving at what is most likely to be true. These are the methods that are being lost. When we start with a conclusion and work backward to try to justify it, we take a step away from truth. I’m advocating that we take a subversive approach: teach the established methods in each discipline that can help us understand what is most likely true; and teach not to start with conclusions.
The conversation has been about absolute truth, and I agree: that is what John is about. Because we know Jesus, we really don’t need to be afraid of where proper methods will take us. I assert that the two (secular and revealed truth) are related. When we start by justifying our own secular conclusions, rather than starting with all the available data/evidence, I assert that we are speaking the language of the father of lies. And that is not our calling as followers of Jesus.
Let’s resist the father of lies by using and by teaching the best methods for understanding truth in our world; and by following closely after revealed truth.
Thank you.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.