(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

We can never know the truth using inductive reasoning. We can sometimes use inductive reasoning to calculate a probability of something being true. However, worldviews automatically influence calculations. We automatically add assumptions to calculations without realizing we’re doing it. The deception is so complete that only the Holy Spirit can show us our errors.

On the other hand, we have absolute proof. We know Jesus Christ personally. That’s proof. He leads us and guides us. He lives within us. By His utterance within us, we know the Bible is valid. He speaks to us through the Bible. And He speaks to us through every means of divine revelation mentioned in the Bible. We know it absolutely. Faith is absolute. And faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word (rhema or utterance) of God. We can’t prove our inner experience to anyone else. However, every person who seeks Christ finds Christ. And Christ is the Light Who lights every person who comes into the world. Anyone can seek Him. No one has to ignore Him when He speaks. Many willingly ignore Him. Many refuse to listen. Those who refuse to listen to Christ have no excuse.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Here’s the idea. Made-up stuff is a sound basis for thought. It doesn’t matter what we call the made-up stuff. We can make ourselves feel more comfortable by using deceptive words for the made-up stuff. We can call made-up stuff “axioms,” “presumptions,” “assumptions,” “basic principles,” “obvious facts,” “givens,” or “common sense.” The idea is made-up stuff is a sound basis for thought. Once we accept that idea, we can make ourselves believe anything. And we can observe the insanity of made-up stuff running out of control in society right now.

What happens if we reject divine revelation and the very real Jesus Christ? If we reject divine revelation from Christ, accepting the idea of made-up stuff becomes the only option. Accepting the idea of a theoretical or theological Christ doesn’t help. Only knowing Christ brings us into sanity.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

The Depth of Misunderstanding

Consider the following quote from Critical Thinking, Second Edition:

“Assumption: An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. . . . If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them.”

This statement from “Critical Thinking, Second Edition” says that an assumption is something we “take for granted or presuppose.” That is, we accept the assumption without proof. Then it says that assumptions can be “justified or unjustified” depending on whether we have “good reasons for them.” But what would be a good reason for believing something that we have no sane reason to believe?

Indeed, the only way we can use an assumption as part of sound reasoning is if we prove that the assumption is true, but if we prove that the assumption is true, it’s not an assumption. Rather, it’s a proved fact. And yet we believe an assumption without a reason to believe it. So the critical thinking book is telling us there’s sometimes a good reason to believe some claim when there’s no good reason to believe the claim.

We can see the depth of the problem. Since so many authoritative sources use irrational thinking, we think it’s sane to think irrationally. We become calloused, and we don’t even notice the insanity. Schools teach irrational thinking as “sound reasoning” and “critical thinking,” so students lose the ability to tell the difference between sanity and insanity. Since ungodly thinking can’t possibly have true premises, secular schools accept irrational thinking patterns as not only normal but the only option.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

The premise is the proof. And yet, we must prove the premise to ourselves. How do we prove a premise? We certainly can’t use another unproven premise. What good would another unproven premise do? And we can’t just declare made-up stuff to be an axiom since applying the label “axiom” has no power to make the made-up stuff true. But if we can’t prove a premise is true, the premise is unknown. And we can’t use the unknown to prove anything. Without true premises, we can’t know anything at all. However, we’ve already identified a way we can know reality with certainty. This way is divine revelation through Jesus Christ. He is the truth, and all knowledge and wisdom are hidden in Him. We can listen to the voice of the Absolute God.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Assumed Premises versus True Premises

Let’s get back to the basics of logic. Rational thought must have true premises. We must prove the premises. We need a reason to believe the premises. The reason must be rational. It must be absolute. We need to know the premises are absolute and true.

To illustrate, suppose I insist I know the Bible is God’s word based on sound reasoning. Then I say my premise (proof) is I assume it, and I take my assumption as an axiom. I presuppose my axiom.

My assumed axiom: “I assume the Bible is God’s word.”

So the ungodly thinker insists the Bible isn’t God’s word and also says she bases her claim on sound reasoning. And the ungodly thinker takes the following assumption as an axiom.

The ungodly thinker’s assumed axiom: “I assume the Bible isn’t God’s word.”

Why is my assumption better than the ungodly thinker’s assumption if I can’t even prove it to myself? Since assumptions are made up, they aren’t part of reality. How can made-up stuff prove something else is real?

I insist on the following:

It makes sense to interpret scientific observations based on the Bible.

It makes sense to interpret historical artifacts based on the Bible.

My interpretation of scientific observations proves the Bible’s authority.

My interpretation of historical artifacts proves the Bible’s authority.

I can trace my premises back to my original assumption of the Bible’s authenticity.

The ungodly thinker insists on the following:

It makes sense to interpret scientific observations based on the writings of ungodly people.

It makes sense to interpret historical artifacts based on the writings of ungodly people.

Her interpretation of scientific observations disproves the Bible’s authority.

Her interpretation of historical artifacts disproves the Bible’s authority.

The ungodly thinker can trace her premises back to her original assumption of the Bible’s unreliability.

The premise is the proof. And yet, we must prove the premise to ourselves. How do we prove a premise? Of course, we certainly can’t use another unproven premise. What good would another unproven premise do? And we can’t just declare made-up stuff to be an axiom since applying the label “axiom” has no power to make the made-up stuff true. But if we can’t prove a premise is true, the premise is unknown. And we can’t use the unknown to prove anything. Without a true premise, we can’t know anything at all. However, we’ve already identified a way we can know reality with certainty. This way is divine revelation through Jesus Christ.

The ungodly thinker can claim you aren’t experiencing what you’re experiencing. The ungodly thinker can refuse to look at the evidence. (The evidence is that anyone who sincerely continues to seek Christ will find Christ. When they find Christ, they will know.) If you say you assume, you have just claimed the ungodly thinkers made-up stuff is competing with your made-up stuff. You had a solid reason to believe, but you gave it up. By assuming the Bible is God’s word, you secretly accept the atheist presupposition that God doesn’t reveal anything to anyone.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Manipulators know how to manipulate. They’re good at it. That’s why advertisers pay millions for a thirty-second advertisement on national TV. Watch this hidden-camera YouTube video. It shows how easily people conform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEhSk71gUCQ

We can, however, choose our leader. We can choose who we’ll follow. We can follow Christ on the one hand. On the other hand, we can follow fallen human minds or demonic entities.

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth” ~ John F. Kennedy

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

We’ve learned that differing worldviews are a major cause of disagreements between people. That’s because worldviews are fake-realities. Fake-realities seem more real than real reality, and the parts of reality that don’t fit our worldviews seem insane and unreal. For instance, worldviews account for different interpretations of the same Scripture by sincere Christians. In the same way, worldviews account for different interpretations of scientific observations by sincere scientists. And confirmation bias mixed with peer pressure makes group-held worldviews more powerful than individual worldviews. It’s easy to see why group-held worldviews control various groups of politicians, theologians, and scientists who use peer pressure to assure compliance and censorship.

And the children go to summer camp,

And then to the university,

And they all get put in boxes,

And they all come out the same. ~ Pete Seeger

(end quote)

How did we get here? How much has Satan distorted our ability to think? Our hope is in Jesus. He is renewing our minds step by step.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Though people with similar worldviews attract each other, every thinker has his or her own unique worldview. We subconsciously manufactured worldviews as concepts of all reality. We then subconsciously filtered our experiences and observations to match our worldviews. In other words, we each used our own unique worldview concept as a filter to sift out any parts of reality that didn’t fit into our particular worldviews.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

The more an assumption agrees with our inner biases, the more dogmatically we believe the assumption. Therefore, we still believe some assumptions even though they’re in disagreement with our observations or experiences. We cling to them despite the obvious conflict.

(end quote)

God is real and reveals Himself to every person. Some people are in denial. God explains why they refuse to come to the Light and why they love darkness.

Ungodly thinkers can’t face the fact that their thoughts aren’t based on anything except fallacies. It’s difficult for them to see it. Those who follow Christ have gone through that same revelation where we realized our dependency on Christ, so we can relate. No one has anything they haven’t received. No one can gloat.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

In Real Faith & Reason Volume One in Trip 3, The Problem of Worldviews, we thoroughly covered the real source of assumptions and showed that they come out of worldviews. And we’ve seen how we formed these worldviews by believing our interpretations of previous experiences and observations. The experiences and observations themselves didn’t form our worldviews. Our interpretations of our experiences and observations formed the worldviews. And since our worldviews filtered and altered our interpretations, we created our worldviews by circular reasoning fallacies and confirmation bias.

(end quote)