This is the fourth blog in a series, I recommend you start at the beginning and then get to this one. I realize in 500 word writings I cannot capture every nuance of belief. The first three blogs are broad generalities of some of the key features of differing world views. There are 1,000’s of flavors of each. My desire is to help us see that whatever “glasses” we accept as our presuppositions will impact all our thinking and flavor every conclusion we come to. For example, many “Christian” groups are not biblical based Christian groups. They pick a few highlights but then build their own religion around it. They don’t draw their belief system from Scripture, they either impose their beliefs on Scripture or just disregard Scripture. Those groups do not fit my category of biblical Christianity.

A secular scientist examining the grand canyon, who has already assumed the evolutionary hypothesis will not be able to see anything but the time periods in the sediment layers. A Biblical Christian as described earlier will flavor all their conclusions based on their forgone conclusion the Bible is the Word of God. A radical Muslim Jihadist will always act based on their presupposition they are to kill the infidels and by that do God service!

My point isn’t to accurately get all the minutiae right of each position, it is to convey that none of us are as independent of thinkers as we tend to believe we are. We are all shaped by those who taught us, influenced us and even by our culture. We cannot help to view the world through the glasses of our presuppositions. Honestly, we all know only a speck of the truth that is to be learned.

Here is my theory. Outcomes are more determined by our starting point than by our investigation. Our presuppositions color our interpretation of what is observed. Hypothesis and theories are interpretations of observation. That is why to be valid they must be replicated by others independently. To think presuppositions don’t sway scientific research is to have your head in a dark cavern.

Science and research are often tainted. They are tainted by presuppositions and by who is paying for the research. Example, do you really think pharmaceutical companies research would want to cure major diseases? Just a question. Do you think someone who is totally closed to even the possibility of a higher power can do legitimate research on origins? Do you think a homosexual activist could do valid research on the causes of homosexuality? Do you think a Biblical Christian could do valid research on the claims of Allah? The odds are long in each example.

Following the money is always a valid pursuit when reading the “expert papers.” Who is paying for research and what is their agenda? What is the scientist credentials and what is his world view? Ever wonder why both sides of every case has expert witnesses?

What I am discovering having both traveled in theological and science based careers is beliefs are driven more by presupposition, emotion, politics and what is popular in culture than by the quest for truth. It was true in theological academia, because once a theological position was assumed, all Scripture had to be pigeon-holed to fit that system of belief.  Now in the energy and science world asking legitimate questions generates more heat than light! When challenging a popular position is not encouraged but rather shamed, ridiculed and silenced it lets me know the quest for truth is not the key factor! It is protecting a silo, emotional or political or “you are so out of vogue flat earther!”

How does all of this have anything to do with the Boy Scouts and allowing homosexuals to participate? That will be the subject of my next blog.

blessings,

Scott