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

Interpretation as a way of knowing

Interpretation by Analyzing

True analysis doesn’t add information or ignore information. However, fake analysis adds fakery to reality. It happens easily. Of course, we must start with pure data, and we must have true premises since analyzing impure data and using false premises creates illusions.

Dictionary.com definition of analysis:

:to separate (a material or abstract entity) into constituent parts or elements; determine the elements or essential features of

Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives this definition:

: a careful study of something to learn about its parts, what they do, and how they are related to each other

: an explanation of the nature and meaning of something

Analysis starts with a summary or synthesis. It then looks at each part.

“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” ~ Ronald Coase

First, our starting point is a summary or synthesis someone may have twisted or distorted. So before we analyze the parts, we need to prove three things. The parts must exist. The associations between parts must exist. We also must make sure we’ve accounted for all the parts, which is often an impossible feat.

Second, we can’t know we’ve identified all the elements unless God reveals shows us we have all the elements. Even when God reveals we have all the elements we need for our current analysis, God also reveals we know in part. He reveals we don’t know as we ought to know. God is infinite, and we are finite, so He will always have something for us to go on to.

Third, we can’t get outside ourselves for purely objective analysis. During analysis, if we add elements of our worldviews to what we’re analyzing, we create an illusion. Our worldviews are fake “realities” that seem real to us. When we add unreal elements from our fake “realities” to the analysis, we don’t realize they’re mere figments from our worldviews. Those elements seem real even though they aren’t real. We often unconsciously filter some elements out if those elements don’t match our worldviews. Worldviews predict. When reality doesn’t match the worldview’s prediction, we automatically filter the conflicting data so we can preserve our worldviews.

Since we face these three problems, we do well to question our analysis. We treat our analysis as tentative and partial so we can receive correction and further understanding. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and to correct us when we get it wrong. As we listen to His voice, we’ll continually improve our understanding.

(end quote)

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

Interpretation as a way of knowing

Interpretation by Summarizing

If we summarize, we state the most important points. For example, we might try to summarize the Bible, some scientific observations, or our experiences. Or we might try to summarize this book.

We make many statements as summaries. Though we try to interpret our observations and experiences by pure objective summarizing, we find it difficult. We find it difficult because our worldviews get in the way. We use our worldviews to decide what is important and what isn’t important.

Anytime we summarize, we leave out information we consider minor and only include information we consider most important. We can easily distort reality into something that looks real but isn’t real. We can make several mistakes with summaries, but we make these mistakes by adding to reality or diminishing reality. As with all interpretations, we can’t avoid our worldviews. As a result, we may filter out some key issues, committing fallacies of omission. Alternately, we may add things from our worldviews, committing axiomatic-thinking fallacies. The information we’re summarizing may also be filled with errors before we start summarizing. So again, we ask God for guidance when summarizing data, and we let Him lead it. The Holy Spirit can show us what we missed and tell us what’s important or unimportant.

(end quote)

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

Interpretation as a way of knowing

Interpretation by Synthesizing

We think of synthetic diamonds as being fake, but that’s not the real meaning of “synthesize.”

Dictionary.com gives this definition:

to form (a material or abstract entity) by combining parts or elements

Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the following definition:

: to make (something) by combining different things

: to combine (things) and make something new

: to make (something) from simpler substances through a chemical process

So the real meaning of “synthesize” isn’t to make up stuff or fake something. To synthesize is to combine parts or elements. As such, we could say synthesizing data is “putting two and two together.” As an example, consider these premises. Assume two people are in one room. Assume two more people are in a second room. Now we can put two and two together. Without making up any new information, we can conclude four people are in the two rooms. We’ve synthesized this conclusion without adding to the information in the premises. We added no information beyond the premises into the conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion follows from the premises. If we had added information beyond the premises, our conclusion would be non-sequitur. It wouldn’t follow from the premises. If the premises had been true, the conclusion would have been true.

Synthesis is important since we sometimes have more information than we realize. At these times, we’ll be looking at something and suddenly receive a revelation that we know more than we thought we knew. We had the information all along. When we realized it, true synthesis took place.

However, false synthesis makes up stuff or filters out reality. If we could interpret observation and experience without adding any claims or filtering out any parts of observation, it would be great, but sadly, human minds don’t always work this way.

We’re back to the same problem of worldviews. We each blind ourselves with our worldviews since worldviews automatically filter our experiences and observations. Worldviews include theologies, philosophies, and other impressions we picked up during life. Worldviews generally contain some truth and some fiction. Not only so, but we easily deceive ourselves using our worldviews since what we have in our worldviews seems real to us. Therefore, when we add concepts from our worldviews to reality, we don’t feel like we’re making up stuff. In other words, we unconsciously add untrustworthy information from the worldview to our observation and experience. We think we’re synthesizing when we’re making up stuff and thinking the made-up stuff is true. Therefore, we need to sincerely ask God for guidance when synthesizing. We must be open to His correction.

(end quote)

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

Interpretation as a way of knowing

Interpretation by Following the Evidence

Unfortunately, “evidence” is a word people use when they want to “prove” untrue ideas or concepts. That’s why we need to know what people mean when we hear them using the word “evidence.” And though we’ve toured this problem previously, we’ll walk through it again here from a different perspective. The word “evidence” has different meanings depending on who is using the word. “Evidence” can mean scientific observation of reality, made-up stuff, or even unfounded opinion. And if people use the same word “evidence” with different meanings that have nothing in common, they can use the word “evidence” to lie, deceive, or cause confusion. They fool us this way sometimes.

For example, a persuader says, “The evidence points to the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humankind story.” However, the persuader is really saying, “My interpretation, based on made-up stuff, points to the story.” The interpretation begins by assuming the story. This circular-reasoning fallacy begins by assuming what it’s trying to prove. Oh, scientists make observations, but the observations don’t prove the story. The made-up stuff “proves” the story. That means the story proves the story.

Because “evidence” can have such varied meanings, whenever we follow the evidence, we’re careful to make sure the evidence is certain. And we make sure we’ve proved the evidence true and haven’t added any hidden assumptions, stories, opinions, or other fallacies. We also make sure the evidence leads to the conclusion.

God uses the word “evidence” when He speaks of faith, but when God uses the word “evidence,” He means absolutely certain proof. Faith IS the evidence of things not seen, just as the Bible says. It’s absolutely certain proof because God’s evidence comes from God’s utterance. God cannot lie and cannot be wrong. He is the absolute authority. His utterance is evidence. His utterance is absolute.

(end quote)

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

As stated earlier, naturalism is a worldview or part of a worldview. It’s an idea that doesn’t connect to reality. And yet, it seems real to naturalists. Worldviews seem more real than reality. They blind us. They limit us. Only the Holy Spirit can break us out of our preconceptions by connecting us to the flowing wisdom and knowledge of God. To naturalists, their shared worldview seems more real than reality itself. They talk to each other and each one confirms the bias of the other. They read and listen to only what confirms their bias. They turn their worldviews, their fake realities, into concrete. And the naturalistic worldview filters out anything spiritual. That means naturalists see any mention of God as disconnected from reality. God seems unreal to naturalists since their naturalistic worldviews blind them as if they had thick veils over their faces. And even though naturalists have no evidence for their worldviews, they still convince themselves that God, spirits, and the spiritual realm don’t exist or aren’t a consideration. As a result, they convince themselves to consider only the natural realm.

(end quote)

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

Two Unmentionable Choices

Let’s go back to the ungodly thinking trilemma. Let’s look at the way ungodly thinkers filter possibilities to eliminate divine revelation. We see how this closed-mindedness comes from the way naturalism removes the choice of divine revelation without processing the thought. But revelation alone provides a true premise. We are irrational if we reason from a premise we can’t prove. The human mind can’t find truth. We can challenge any conclusion of the human mind, so it requires further proof. The fallen human mind only finds opinions. And since sound reasoning must have a true premise, naturalism forces ungodly thinkers to be irrational. Ungodly thinkers are irrational when they try to challenge God. They know better. God already revealed Himself to them. God revealed what humans can know about the Godhead to them. And He revealed many other facts to them, so they’re without excuse.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
The proof for Jesus Christ is coming to know Jesus Christ, and we’ve experienced Him. But if we direct dogmatic ungodly thinkers to Christ, they refuse to look at Him. That means they refuse to look at the evidence. Of course, they don’t want to come to Him. They don’t want to know Him and His righteousness. Some of these ungodly thinkers who refuse to know Christ are atheists or agnostics. However, some are Christians who don’t know Jesus Christ but follow a religion rather than following Christ. In either case, when ungodly thinkers refuse to look at the evidence, they stop rational discussion. We can’t convince a person who refuses to look at the evidence. For instance, if a person were to refuse to look at evidence of the sun, we couldn’t even prove the existence of the sun to this person.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Of course, the sun exists. Just look at the sky.

Sandy Sandbuilder: No. I’m not going to look in the sky at the nonexistent sun.

Rocky: You can feel the heat coming from the sun.

Sandy: I’m not going to base conclusions on feelings.

Now consider the person who refuses to look at evidence of God.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Of course, God exists. Just sincerely seek Him, and you’ll find Him.

Sandy Sandbuilder: No. I’m not going to seek a nonexistent god.

Rocky: If you ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He’ll show you. If you listen, you’ll hear His voice.

Sandy: I’m not going to base conclusions on the voice of an imaginary god.

If Sandy were to look at the sky, he would see the sun. In the same way, if Sandy were to seek Christ, he would come to know Christ. If he came to know Christ, Christ would plant His faith into Sandy. Then, Sandy would become a brand new man. From that point, Sandy would walk from glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord, continually walking in greater discernment between truth and made-up stuff. He would begin building on this Rock.
(end quote)

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

Even though ungodly thinkers base reason on bare claims and use bare claims freely, they still demand absolute proof from anyone who disagrees with them. They have no proof for their belief system, but they say they won’t believe anything without proof. However, disbelievers demand proof insincerely since they don’t want proof.

They have proof. God speaks to them. He speaks to them through His creation. He shows them nothing creates itself. Everything goes the other way. No energy creates itself. No matter creates itself. No life creates itself. No information creates itself. And God intervenes repeatedly in the course of nature and human events. They ignore God’s hand and refuse to see it. God speaks to ungodly thinkers through those who speak by the Spirit of God. God speaks to them through intuition. They know. However, they ignore God. They know better, but they refuse to acknowledge Christ. They suppress the truth in their deceitful trickery. They play mind games with the Holy Spirit. If they wanted proof, they would examine proof when God provides it. Therefore, they’re guilty of axiomatic-thinking fallacies, special-pleading fallacies, and refusing to look at the evidence.

(end quote)

<quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf>

The Foundational Error

A single foundational error is at the root of ungodly thinking. And since there’s only one true Foundation, Jesus Christ, building on any other foundation is a foundational error. While the worldview of naturalism forces this error, people also find other ways to make the same error. They find ways to refuse to acknowledge the reality of God. For example, materialism, agnosticism, and atheism are common ways of making this foundational error in thinking. Secularism is another word for the same sort of godless thinking. Another word is rationalism. There’s nothing rational about rationalism. And we, as Christians, make this error whenever we fail to acknowledge Christ in all our ways.

Reasoning without God is the foundational error in thinking because, without God, we have no way to generate precise and correct knowledge of truth about anything. We know unanointed human reasoning has no power to think rationally since, without God, we interpret observations using axiomatic-thinking fallacies. That means we interpret observations by making up stuff and making believe the made-up stuff was true. That’s the ungodly-thinking fallacy, and we can’t get around the ungodly-thinking fallacy without revelation. Ungodly thinking always depends on pretending and faking it, but those of us who love truth and aren’t afraid of reality need the one Way to know truth. Thankfully, this Way is available in the One Who is Truth. He is the Way, and He’s the only Way. Everyone who loves truth finds Jesus.

<end quote>