Long before the digital information age when basic Judeo-Christian values formed the foundations of much of American culture and life, discerning fact from fiction was far less complicated. Information was limited. Prayer and Biblical precepts guided family, church, and civil discussions, while authorities were considered to be informed and trustworthy.
Today, information is thrown at us like water from a fire hydrant, except instead of putting out fires, the information ignites and fuels them. Anyone with internet access can pretend to be an authority on the subject, regardless of age, experience, education, or qualifications, as they post information that naive readers will deem as being as trustworthy as expert analysis. Conflicting information shapes the internet, especially with regard to religion and politics, and navigating it seems overwhelming at best. Fact checking websites like
Snopes, PolitiFact, and Factcheck.org have promised to show us the truth, but they have also been called out for bias or deceptive cover-up.
As moral relativism became more pervasive leading people to reject the absolute truths found in God's word and even the universal moral law, simply discerning moral truth has become confusing for many. Moral relativists insist that what is right for you does not have to be right for me and vice versa as long as we show tolerance for one another. But when a terrorist killed 50 members of the LGBT community in Orlando, what seemed right to the terrorist was completely intolerable by most Americans while Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration defended Islam and refused to call it a terror attack even though ISIS proudly took the credit. No one seems to know what is true in the culture, in the media, or even in their own individual hearts.
Now that we are nearing the climax of the most scandalous, outrageous, pivotal presidential election cycle of the century with shocking degrees of corruption, deception, power brokering, and injustice being exposed almost daily through inflammatory, conflicting headlines, Americans often wonder if there is any truth to be found anywhere. Is there anyone we can trust to be honest? How do we discern what is true in a such a deceptive information age? How do we teach the next generation to rightly discern the truth?
There are no easy answers to these question, for discernment only comes from God, but there are at least some general guidelines or questions to consider to help encourage critical thought and to avoid common pitfalls that come when
we exchange the truth for a lie. The ability to discern truth is useful in many different contexts, but for the sake of simplicity, I would like to address just two of them:
1) Discerning between fact and spin in the media
2) Recognizing false teaching within the Christian church
Receive Salvation Through Christ
In both contexts, Christians must remember that God is the source of all truth and wisdom. He reveals His truth to us through Christ and by the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who choose to follow Him. We cannot discern truth apart from Him
.
....grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.(John 1:17)
True wisdom is not available to us until we choose to believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah and put all our trust in Him. Then His Spirit begins to guide us according to His truth.
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)
Do not be surprised when the wisdom God gives seems foolish in the eyes of the world, "for the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom" (
1 Corinthians 1:25). Jesus repeatedly called the Pharisees "blind" (five times in Matthew 23 alone) because they were lost, unable to discern spiritual truth. So it was fitting that following Paul's dramatic encounter with Christ and conversion to Christianity, scales fell from his eyes to remove both his temporary physical blindness and his spiritual blindness. The Spirit of God helped him to truly see. (
Acts 9:18)
Pray
The prerequisite for discerning truth is salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. The first and most important step as a believer seeking to grow in wisdom and discernment of the truth is to pray. Ask God to give you the wisdom you need, fully believing that He give it to you generously. Also pray for an objective mind on issues not clearly addressed in God's word so that you will not let your personal preferences cloud your judgment.
If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. (James 1:5)
Also intercede for others, especially the younger generations who must carry the baton of faith and truth and light after us.
For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, (Colossians 1:9)
Seek Wisdom Above All Else
We honor and please God when we seek His wisdom over anything the world offers us instead. Consider how God rewarded Solomon when God offered to give him anything he wanted, and Solomon only asked for wisdom.
10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. (1 Kings 3:10-12)
Build Critical Thinking Skills Through Guided Inquiry
After establishing that God is the ultimate source of all wisdom and discernment, I would like to offer some practical questions that anyone can use to help recognize deception in the media. Considering these questions can be very time consuming, especially given how much information we must filter each day, but they will help us come closer to recognizing what is true and what is false. Knowledge builds upon itself at an ever increasing rate, so as we build upon a foundation of truth, filtering becomes faster and easier as we go.
1. Consider the source of the information.
- Was the information obtained in an unbiased way? Biased collection methods do not provide reliable results. (Note: Removing bias from political polls is extremely challenging, while skewing polls on purpose is quite simple.)
- Does the provider have sufficient expertise, firsthand knowledge, and statistical aptitude to accurately collect and present the data? If the author has had no way of obtaining accurate knowledge of the subject he's addressing, he probably doesn't have any.
- What lurking variables could be influencing the data? Are they stated and reflected in the information presented?
- Does the presenter have a history and reputation of being trustworthy and honest?
- Is the information provider characterized by transparency and a willingness to take questions or undergo validation/investigation as needed?
- Does the provider of the information have unchecked power that minimizes accountability? Unchecked power usually leads to both corruption and deception.
2.
Consider the purpose of the published information.
- What benefits (money, promotion, fame, influence) might the provider receive by
convincing you to believe the information presented? The richer the
reward, the more questionable the information may be. Follow the money.
- Are
the inferences and conclusions derived from the information consistent
with the context of the information or has it been manipulated to steer
thoughts toward an intended outcome?
- Is the purpose for
publishing the information helpful, good, and pure?
Does the purpose honor and respect life, or does the purpose
involve anything akin to deceiving, stealing, killing or destroying that
which is good? God is the source of all truth, the creator of life and
the giver of all that is good, while Satan is the father of lies who
seeks to steal, kill, or destroy that which is good. If the motives
are sinister, the information is likely intended to deceive. If the motives are
pure, reflecting God's good character, then the information is more likely to be
reliable.
- Is the information presented in a way that seems
overdone or too convincing? If so, the provider may be trying too hard
to convince you of something that isn't true.
3. Consider the context of the information.
- Is the information taken completely out of context and used in an unrelated context? (This error commonly occurs when trying to justify wrong choices or opinions using Bible references or legal statutes.)
- Are the conclusions derived from the information consistent within the context in which it is being applied?
- Are any pertinent details conveniently left out of the presentation of
the information to lead the reader to a desired conclusion? Usually, the more details that are provided, the less likely it is that important information is being intentionally left out. Conversely, too much unnecessary information may be added to distract the reader from the information the provider hopes they will ignore or miss in the midst of all the other details.
4. Are the conclusions drawn from the data Biblical, rational, plausible, and reasonable?
- Any information that contradicts Biblical truth should be dismissed. God's truth never changes, and He cannot deny Himself.
- If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is and should be dismissed as false.
- If any publication sites original sources, be sure to check the original data. Are the other details surrounding the information consistent with the conclusions made and consistent with other sources already deemed reliable? Consistency across sources renders the content more
believable. (Note: This method of comparing transcripts found in many different regions over a wide span of time was also used to affirm the authenticity and reliability of
the Biblical canon.)
- Do the details and conclusions follow a logical progression?
- Are the conclusions from the data consistent with basic economic principles, scientific law, and lessons learned from similar scenarios played out throughout world history?
- Does the author offer you free stuff? Nothing is ever free. It will cost you or someone else dearly in the long run. Who will pay for it? It is good, right, and fair for them to pay your share? If it is the least bit questionable or makes you uncomfortable, do not assume it is true.
5. Is any reliable counter evidence available?
- Counter
evidence must be more verifiable than the information itself to
override the information's credibility. For example, the Biblical
creation account cannot be overridden by the theory of evolution since
neither has been established as scientific law. The theory of evolution certainly has more holes with probabilities far too impossible to take seriously, so while the creation account offers more credibility, empirical evidence using scientific methods cannot prove that which cannot be replicated and can only be accepted by faith.
- An example of counter evidence would be Comey's FBI
investigation summary detailing the findings of the FBI's systematic investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal
which countered public testimony Clinton made in defense of herself. In
this case, FBI documentation detailing her crimes would override her comments, which would have been much more likely motivated out of self-protection that out of a desire to be honest, especially
given her history of excessively lying.
- The emails posted by
WikiLeaks during the current POTUS campaign, however, have not been
presented with any counter evidence. Despite being embarrassed by the
public posting of his private emails which included derogatory comments, Colin Powell never denied them. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and CNN Contributor Donna Brazile were forced to resign as a result of WikiLeaks revealing their roles in campaign rigging, which provides further proof of their legitimacy. With evidence to support the validity of the WikiLeaks and no evidence thus far to counter them, they can be assumed to be reliable.
It's impossible to provide an exhaustive list of questions to consider, but as we ask the Spirit to guide us, He will lead us to the right questions to ponder.
I help students build critical thinking skills by using guided inquiry to help lead them to their own discoveries or to the answer for a mathematical or scientific problem problem. The more they practice applying inquiry to various real life situations, the sharper their critical thinking skills become and the better able they are to derive the right answer. Similarly, I believe it helps to regularly practice guided inquiry (that is, asking ourselves the types of questions listed above) when presented with conflicting information to help ourselves and those we mentor/teach to grow in godly discernment.
I'll share an example I used with my 12th grade Statistics students to illustrate. The following graph shows the number of women who died as a result of the abortion procedure using statistics compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics. This graph was published by The Alan
Guttmacher Institute in a document entitled Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000,
January 2003.
If you know that Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, then this graph would lead readers to believe that legalizing abortion resulted in fewer deaths for women, and that is exactly the point that the author was trying to make by presenting this graph.
After seeking the Lord and praying for His wisdom to guide us as we examine the information, we would then begin asking some of the suggested questions. Consider the source of the information. Who is Alan Guttmacher? What does the Institute named after him do, and what is the purpose for this information? A quick Google search provide us the following information about Alan Guttmacher:
So far so good.
This second set of information should immediately alert us to his bias is it presents him as being pro-abortion and pro-eugenics. He is a secular humanist who could not possibly value the sanctity of human life given his life's work in abortion, birth control, and sterilization. His motivation is clearly to promote abortion as being good for society, so immediately this graph becomes suspect. Biblical truth also leads us to mistrust the information because it is being applied in the context of supporting the murder of innocent babies, something God's word condemns. Instead of having a purpose that is good, pure, and right, it's purpose is to promote death and destruction.
Next, consider original data and consistency. The
CDC publishes all these statistics on-line,
so this graph could be reconstructed using data directly from the CDC
website. This comparison would show that The Alan
Guttmacher Institute did provide an accurate representation of the
original data. The National
Center for Health Statistics is supposedly an objective source without any pro-abortion bias, so that cross reference checks out as being valid.
Now let's consider context. CDC data collected for health purposes is being placed in the context of a pro-abortion publication to argue that abortion reduces death rates for women. That may not seem like too much of a context shift, but consider what other lurking variables could have influenced the drop in death rates. Observe the graph more closely. Why did death rates drop before Roe v. Wade was passed? That decrease in death rates may account for the decrease after Roe v. Wade. What would the graph look like if we expanded the time line to back further into history? These questions could be answered by going back to the CDC data to expand the graph over a longer period of time and by noting related medical advancements by year to establish any possible lurking variables.
By searching the internet for counter evidence, we find that the enhanced graph including pertinent medical details and data going back 25 years earlier is already available, and it presents a very different message. This graph utilizes the same CDC data but over a longer time line. It also includes other variables impacting the data and the dates for each.
This graph shows the most dramatic decline in death rates between 1940 and 1950 and attributes that reduction to the introduction of sulfa drugs (antimicrobial agents) and penicillin (antibiotic used to treat infection). The graph doesn't site a cause for the rise of the number of deaths around 1960, but the sexual revolution of the 60s and the careless lifestyles likely increased the both the overall number of abortions performed and the risks associated with them. By 1972, the year before abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court, the maternal death rate during abortion had fallen to 39 per year, less than one per state. Thus, legalizing abortion cannot be credited with abortion survival rates.
It should be noted that I found this counter evidence on the website of a pro-life activist organization which would certainly introduce biased motives. The graph was actually
used on the floor of the U.S. Senate during hearings on
abortion in 1981, but it was not challenged by abortion supporters.
Given that it provides more information and that the motivations are for life and consistent with Biblical truth, it is deemed more reliable than the first graph presented from a pro-abortion graph.
This exercise was lengthy to illustrate each of the key considerations, but discerning truth is not always so cumbersome.
When discerning between Biblical teaching and false teaching within the context of the Christian church, we have the advantage of the unchanging, perfect, authority on truth, the Bible. The next post will provide tips for determining if a teacher's messages are Biblically accurate or ungrounded in the truth and therefore destructive to the family of faith, leading others astray.