Knowing versus Google-knowing

Do you know that or do you just “Google-know” it? “Google-know” is an interesting expression of late. How much does Google know about you? Click here to find out! Well, there may be lots of bits collected on me, but Google still doesn’t know me at all. And this distinction is one reason why I find many arguments against God and faith so superficial and uninteresting.

The internet, especially the Google and Wikipedia phenomenon, seems to have given people the impression that they actually know a thing or that they can speak as an expert on a subject simply by looking it up and parroting an answer. I’ve had people argue with me on a point that I have personal knowledge on by giving a Wikipedia or dictionary definition, then proceed to show me how little they actually understand what they’re talking about. And I’m not trying to say I’m expert in all things, but there are things I truly know not just Google-know. I’m sure you do, too.

I remember when I was about to graduate with a degree in Electronic Engineering back in 1982, one of our professors said to us, “Okay, now go out and learn something about electronics.” I quickly learned the truth of that statement when I went into the field.

It pains me to have to say this because it should be self-evident, but there’s knowledge about our reality that goes beyond philosophical arguments or science’s ability to observe or postulate a theory. There’s intuitive truth, like knowing that the world we see is framed and continues to exist by something we can’t see or observe by natural means (Heb.11:3).

There’s also shared human experiences, there’s knowing that we don’t often do as we should, or the truth of sacrificial love, suffering, joy, honor, courage, graciousness, beauty, wonder, art, friends that never quit on you….or the love you feel when you hold your newborn child in your arms for the first time.

This knowledge defies description. It cannot be understood unless it’s experienced, and I would argue, goes much deeper than intellectual abstractions or even concrete scientific methodology.

It’s so profound it changes us.

This is why no matter how much we know about our biological chemical reactions in the brain, it will never really explain what it means to be in love, or even to be alive at all. At least, we’ll never be satisfied or moved by such steely-cold reductionisms. The flattened world of scientific explanation doesn’t really satisfy or explain anything about the innate longings of the human soul. It’s the wrong kind of knowledge for that.

I have a knowledge about my wife that you will never have, even if you could somehow collect every fact about her. You’ll still never fully understand my experience of her. What it feels like for me to be loved by her and experience her companionship at a deep heart level.

After 40 years of living life with her, I don’t just have Google-knowledge of my wife, I have a much deeper and more meaningful relational knowledge that has shaped me and helped me understand something very profound about life itself.

Using our expression, human beings only “Google-knew” God before Jesus. He was the only One who actually knew God intimately. This is clear from Scripture:

27 “My Father has entrusted everything to me. No one truly knows the Son except the Father, and no one truly knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (Matt.11:27 NLT)

18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:18 NIV)

The Old Testament is full of stories about men and women who knew God from a distance, by faith, but not as He really was. This is why we must interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus Christ. He is the only one who can explain what God is really like to us.

We can theologically and philosophically talk about God and His existence, but that doesn’t mean that we know anything meaningful about Him. Likewise, we can quote the Bible to make our arguments, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we know what the Bible is actually saying to us.

The devil quoted the Bible in order to lie to Jesus.

And this gets to what bugs me in general about Christian apologetics when it comes to defending the veracity of Scripture. I think Jordan Peterson is right when he says that both the Fundamentalist Bible literalists and anti-Christian atheists believe that science gives us the only real knowledge there is, because both appeal to scientific methods to prove their point (see video clip here). It only shows how scientistic we’ve become as a culture, whether we believe the Bible or not.

What’s ironic is that science cannot prove or disprove anything about God. Science cannot give us biblical truth, and the Bible doesn’t necessarily give us scientific truth (see my post, “Science cannot replace God.”)

There’s knowledge that comes from facts and evidence and there’s knowledge that goes much deeper, is much more meaningful where it matters, and that’s truth that frees us to be our authentic selves and become better human beings. Truth is a Person, and knowing Him, not just Google-knowing Him, is what makes us truly free.

31-32 Then Jesus turned to the Jews who had claimed to believe in him. “If you stick with this, living out what I tell you, you are my disciples for sure. Then you will experience for yourselves the truth, and the truth will free you.” (John 8:31-32 MSG)

Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 38 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Freedom and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Knowing versus Google-knowing

  1. ColorStorm says:

    Mel said:

    What’s ironic is that science cannot prove or disprove anything about God. Science cannot give us biblical truth, and the Bible doesn’t necessarily give us scientific truth.’

    Good post in general, but I can’t disagree more as to the above. I think we simply have not looked deep enough into scripture from the perspective of True science.

    I have a friend, PhD in microbiology, and he tells me it was in fact science and the confirmation of scripture that opened his eyes.

    If God is God, and His word is good, then who are we to say that Science does not prove Him?

    I recall the very words of Paul: Doth not nature itself teach you?

    And of course he would agree that there is more true science in Genesis chapter 1, than all the universities in the world.

    Sometimes I think Mel that we are simply afraid of the ramifications if we take God at His word- it may mean we have to change our minds. ‘The earth IN the water,’ ‘The waters ABOVE the heavens,’ the stars as lights, etc.

    If being a literalist is somehow considered abnormal in the realm of understanding, I say sign me up, google be damned.

    But I’m pretty sure true science is not threatened in the least by scripture.

    • jim- says:

      ”What’s ironic is that science cannot prove or disprove anything about God”. What ironic is religion can’t prove or disprove anything about god. Seems to be unanimous.

      • ColorStorm says:

        Per the post here jim, if you would not rely on the opinions of others, and the google gullibility factor…….. you may want to actually see what God says of religion:

        ‘Pure religion and undefiled before God is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from this world.’

        Now then, before a worldwide audience, I dare you to educate us, and tell us how:

        a. religion, as described in scripture is bad.
        b. religion,as described in scripture, is not good
        c. religion, as described in scripture, has no equal.
        d. that atheism is spotless
        e. that’s God’s word does not answer fools perfectly.
        f. and do tell us how your petty gripes can tarnish scripture one whit.

        As I have said elsewhere, God’s word has never lost a single argument- just recall that big ole headless big mouthed goon, goliath of Gath, a nine foot dunce,

        But thanks for the attempt to make us aware of the irrelevance of atheism. lol

      • Mel Wild says:

        @ Jim.
        It depends on what you mean by proof, which gets to the crux of what I’m trying to say here. Scientific proof? Archaeological proof? None of those things could prove anything about God. The problem is, when we want to dismiss something we tend to lump the whole thing in the worst possible light, omitting what works, so we can declare utter failure. But that is a fallacious argument in so many different ways.

        There are many, many other kinds of “proofs” of the existence of God. There’s deductive reasoning. At the most fundamental level, we continue to exist, and it’s not evident that the cosmos can create and sustain itself. All the atheist’s ontological arguments have been incoherent in this regard. This is why philosophy is important. Another proof is the positive effect Christianity has had on Western culture. Even honest skeptics admit how deeply our values are Judeo-Christian. Of course, dishonest skeptics only point at the negative things. And another proof is the changed lives of literally billions of people over thousands of years. We cannot just dismiss these things and pretend they would’ve happened on their own. There is just no evidence for that. They don’t provide sufficient explanatory scope.

        Let me also say that atheists have leveled some accusations against Christianity that are just and I agree with. We should admit them and learn from them and correct them when necessary. But that doesn’t, in any way, make belief in God defective. As it’s been said, the only problem with Christianity is the Christians. 🙂 But, like any other human endeavor, we must grow and learn from our mistakes.

        • jim- says:

          ”Of course, dishonest skeptic only point at the negative things”. Deductive reasoning to justify a presupposition is dishonest. Whenever one sets out to prove a belief you will find the proof you need. That is the bias of deductive reasoning which also can easily conclude the opposite, or Islam. Philosophical arguments for god are necessary to justify belief that cannot be carefully reasoned into truth. Ontology has never settled anything but more philosophy. Religion has changed many lives, therefore Jesus is real? You win! 😃 People have the power to change their own lives, most just don’t know they already hold that power—Unbelief doesn’t make you go back to the mire. Change comes from within. At the most fundamental level the cosmos just is a brute fact and sustains itself—nothing has been proven otherwise. There was never nothing. Unless of course religion wants to adopt some scientific claims to suit their need. Science and religion is give and take. Science gives, religion takes the parts that suit them after centuries of denial. This is not honesty.

        • Mel Wild says:

          “Deductive reasoning to justify a presupposition is dishonest. Whenever one sets out to prove a belief you will find the proof you need.”

          Sorry Jim, this is just utter nonsense. All scientific inquiry and ontological investigation MUST start with an assumption or even presupposition. Then you set out to either prove or disprove it through experimentation (science) or deductive reasoning (philosophy, mathematics, physics). And the deductive reasoning used in Classical theism to prove God starts with very observable phenomenon in our every day world and ends with the logical conclusion that contingent things cannot be the fundamental source of their own motive power. Just like we can conclude that a circle cannot be a square. This is the only way you can talk about the possibility of something that might exist beyond the natural world. You certainly can’t use scientific inquiry! Science cannot prove or disprove anything beyond its own methodology.

          “Ontology has never settled anything but more philosophy.”

          Of course, that’s because we’re talking about something that exists outside of science’s ability to observe or test in the natural world. To try to do so is a fallacious category mistake. But what ontology does do is show us that there is something beyond our ability to test with scientific method. To simply dismiss it is just willful ignorance. And incoherent ontology will never answer anything. The elephant in the room won’t go away by dismissing it.

          “Unbelief doesn’t make you go back to the mire. Change comes from within.”

          Of course, Jim. No is arguing that here. We as humans innately know right from wrong. That’s not the question. But when you say “within” you have entered into a very debatable territory that you have no proof doesn’t come from something transcendent. And we intuitively know there’s something more than just neurons firing in our brain. It doesn’t provide a satisfactory explanation.

          “At the most fundamental level the cosmos just is a brute fact and sustains itself”

          LOL! What a faith statment! 🙂 Sorry, to call this a brute fact is totally dishonest.There is NO conclusive evidence whatsoever that that cosmos can create or sustain itself. Quite the opposite. We’ve only demonstrably shown that it’s contingent because everything is in motion. We have not answered what keeps those most fundamental elements in motion. Certainly not quantum gravity! What motive power sustains that? This is where ontology is important. It keeps you from making faith statements like the self-existence of the cosmos is a brute fact.

          “Science and religion is give and take. Science gives, religion takes the parts that suit them after centuries of denial. This is not honesty.”

          And this statement is either a demonstration of willful ignorance or a dishonest dismissal of its own. Nothing more than a cherry picking history and erecting a straw man of some version of religion in order to suit your vitriolic presuppositions. I think it would be good for you to take an honest look at your own perspective here, Jim. Of course, you will believe whatever you want, but science and religion are not mutually exclusive when properly understood.

        • jim- says:

          I’ll just address one of these but your rebuttal is all faith and no reasonable evidencie. The universe brute fact is worth an lol? Please prove to me there was ever nothing Mel. And try doing it again without borrowing from scientific THEORY. Ontology and philosophy have had thousands of years to prove a point. All we’ve gotten is talk.

        • Mel Wild says:

          “I’ll just address one of these but your rebuttal is all faith and no reasonable evidence.”

          Actually, you addressed several things here, so I will respond to each. First, evidence? Atheists keeps saying this without ever defining what they mean. What do you mean by “reasonable evidence,” Jim? What kind of evidence are you talking about?

          “The universe brute fact is worth an lol? Please prove to me there was ever nothing Mel.”

          Of course, there was never nothing. You said that the universe sustaining itself is a brute fact. This is total faith statement. You cannot prove that the universe can sustain itself at all. Actually, we can prove the opposite. Everything in the universe is contingent and in motion, which means it needs a more fundamental force to actuate it.

          “Ontology and philosophy have had thousands of years to prove a point. All we’ve gotten is talk.”

          Just talk? Okay, I’ll resist an “LOL,” but really??? This only proves how scientistic your fishbowl worldview is. Again, what “proof” are you talking about? God would not be some being up in space somewhere that we can detect with instruments. What would you consider proof for something that would necessarily exist outside of the natural world? And, yet, we exist? Do you know why? You still haven’t given me any “proof” for what you believe. You cannot explain your own continuing existence. Maybe you should actually think more deeply about these things before being so dismissive about ontology and philosophy.

        • jim- says:

          The universe—billions of planets and stars that we can’t even see is controlled by Jesus, and yet he finds time to tinker in the human genome now and then and alter the laws of physics to to care for us because we’re having trouble coping today. Laws he himself set in motion trillions of years ago and knew each predicament we would need help with, but only if we ask at the right time (in favor of his will) and we feel it’s important to extend our lives a few years to die anyway.
          Another good word to describe ontology/philosophy—imagination. Conjuring up reasons to feel special. The proof I need is to observe some outcomes that match all the promises. Prayers that actually get answered. Miracles that have no other explanation. A religion that can stand on its own merits without being propped up at every turn and protected by laws. There are none. The fact is things have been happening for much longer than Jesus/Jehovah/YHWY or anyone can quite consider. Millions of years and many rises and falls of hominids. Did Jesus appear to them too?
          Faith is only required of something that doesn’t exist—an idea, for if it exists we would know it and no belief would be required.
          I do have my own thoughts Mel. Am I not entitled to find my own meaning outside the readymade dogmas that only suit you if you tweak what you already know?
          I do have a question about the natural man—another biblical contradiction. Everybody wants to believe something. The natural man is actually the believing man and the Bible has awarded everyone a trophy for doing what few men can help but do. Why? Belief is the root of all tribalism, war, division—and ego. A few of us break away from belief and chart our own course and strive independence and are ridiculed for it. Even belief in the most ridiculous dogmas gets more consideration than non belief. To me that’s weird.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, you’re not even responding to my points so I’ll leave it there. You certainly can believe whatever you want, Jim. I’m just not sure then why you’re wasting your time coming here and commenting if your mind is closed to these things. And no one is ridiculing you, I’m am responding to your dismissive answers. I’m also questioning the coherence of your reasoning and pointing out where you are making faith statements. If you didn’t want an honest discussion on those things, that’s fine. Believe whatever you want. Again, we’ll leave it there.

        • jim- says:

          The universe can certainly operate in its own. Even the most basic experiments illustrate reactions of various elements and eventually find equilibrium in any system. Even a chaotic environ like the sun. I didn’t intentionally dismiss anything. Sorry if it seemed so as it felt like it was getting a bit long. Good night. 🌙

        • Mel Wild says:

          You are making a very debatable assertion about the universe being self-existent. If there are reactions, or even an equilibrium, there must be a more fundamental force actuating the process, which still makes it all contingent. So it’s certainly not evident. But you’re right, this is getting long and it’s late. Good night. 🙂

        • jim- says:

          Sure, everything is debatable when you fail to comprehend the shear size of the universe and vast time it took for these things to happen. This from William Lane Craig on ID and creation—“ A beachcomber who comes upon a sandcastle recognizes that it’s not the result of the action of the waves and the wind but of intelligent design.

          Some of these inferences are so obvious that it never even occurs to us to ask why we are justified in making such inferences to design. Obvious? Not to me. Sandcastles appear all the time in geologic time. Look at Moab Utah for instance. Millions of years of waves and wind from the very oceans that surround us now. You want to explain how things just happen from god. Mr Craig refers to naturally occurring sandcastles. They appear all the time in geologic time. Ya’ll want to rush the process, but it took a long, long time. No species or planets (or even sandcastles) ever evolved in the time it takes to go to the beach.

        • Mel Wild says:

          “Sure, everything is debatable when you fail to comprehend the shear size of the universe and vast time it took for these things to happen.”

          You still have not addressed my question, Jim. It had nothing to do with any of these things, certainly not Craig or ID or time or size. It doesn’t matter how long something takes. Where is your proof that the universe is self-existent (in the here and now) since the only evidence we have is that for contingent elements that are themselves in motion (changing, meaning contingent in need of a more fundamental actualized force).

        • jim- says:

          I did answer it a while back with a simple science experiment. Things align, react, stabilize, and carry on with no help from anyone. Its like oil and water Mel. Everything finds its place whether you will it or not. These hydrogen explosions and implosions put things in motion—no god required. Gravitational waves and space time fabric, laws of repulsion and attraction which are obvious to see have been going on before and will continue long after we’re extinct. But life will again rise when conditions are met. It is a quite narrow window that, btw, we are damaging with carelessness. But, like before it will happen again when conditions are right.
          A more complex answer has been thousands of years in the making,—and nothing. There’s nothing to find. Many people much smarter than me have dwelled on this convo for thousands of years, and ontology and philosophy have only explained what we want to hear. Cleverly worded suppositions to make us feel good, while nothing has come of it—some evidence? Other than pretending something is better because we’ve carefully worded our need into reason?

        • Mel Wild says:

          “Things align, react, stabilize, and carry on with no help from anyone.”

          But that’s overly simplistic and even patently false. We know that everything is set into motion by something more fundamental (more actualized) than itself. And you cannot have infinite regress in a chain because then nothing could exist. So, no matter how you slice it, you’re left with the need for something self-existent, infinite, non-material, not changing, and fully actualized at the bottom of it all. You see, this is why ontology is important, and why the one you’re proffering is incoherent. If it reacts or changes, it’s contingent, still a distal member of a motive chain.

          And this is also the problem I have with your assumptions, Jim. You’re doing exactly what you (atheists) accuse Christians of doing. You’re making “just so” statements based on your own presuppositions and not really thinking it through to its ultimate conclusion, which I’m trying to get you to do.

          The reason this debate has gone on for thousands of years is because, as Pascal once said, in the final analysis it’s a leap of faith to believe or not believe in God. And human beings will choose to believe whatever they want. And the reason for this is, if there is a God you won’t find Him by any experiment. He would necessarily exist outside of time and space and the natural world (otherwise, He would Himself be part of it and contingent). So, even though it is a question of faith (either way), you cannot give me anything in the natural world that can sustain itself without some more fundamental motive force, so the elephant remains firmly embedded in the room. THAT is just a brute fact that is never going to go away.

          One thing I’ve found to be empirically true. You (atheists) will believe whatever you want to believe about these things no matter what I say, so I wish you the best on that endeavor. 🙂

        • John Branyan says:

          One of my favorite atheist responses is: “I already addressed that…”
          It’s a classic! Rather than answer a question, Jim insists the question was answered and you didn’t notice.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yeah, it’s too bad that I noticed, because he never addressed my question at all. But I’ve gotten used to that from atheists.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I think we agree more than we disagree, Colorstorm. I also don’t think we have to be afraid of any ramifications if we take God at His word. And He could have created anyway He wanted to, God has no limits, by definition. And I’m not saying at all there isn’t science in the Bible. I just think taking that stand on scientific grounds is the wrong fight. The idea of trying to make the Bible stand up to scientific methodology is a fairly recent one (19th century). The Old and New Testament writers would not have been even trying to give us scientific methodology. That was not how history was written in ancient times. It would not have crossed their minds.

      And this particular ground for debate shows just how much we turn to science in order to prove the veracity of something, which is also telling of how scientistic our culture has gotten.

      Of course, modern science was birthed by believers who thought that since God made the universe according to natural laws, a methodology could be developed from it.

      But I don’t think it’s necessary to prove the veracity of what the Bible is actually saying to us. The Word of God goes much deeper, I think. It gives us very deep knowledge about ourselves and and about why we’re here. Science can answer none of these questions.

      We can agree to disagree on this, Colorstorm. Frankly, if the Bible turns out to be literally true, that would be fine with me. I just don’t think it’s necessary to be at odds with science. It doesn’t change my faith in God or Scripture one iota, either way. That isn’t what makes Scripture so powerful, to me anyway.

      • ColorStorm says:

        Absolutely agree more- especially in the areas of priorities.

        We need not fear science, and yes, science cannot answer the intangibles- what is love? What does a flower smell like?
        But it sure points us in the right direction.

        Tkx too for the edit fix- sweet.

  2. Well said, Mel. Thank God for Jesus, literally, because He gives us the experience, the relationship, the part that we can wrap our hearts around and not just our brains. God in human form.

    “Google knowing,” hubby calls that book learning. He fixes a lot of things that the engineers and architects thought would be a good idea. Sometimes I think religion is a bit like that, book learning and Google knowing.

    Something that gives me fits, you just can’t teach experience, you can’t explain common sense, you can’t give people a relationship and the Holy Spirit. They have to step into that themselves.

    Tesla once said, “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” I think that’s really true, but how do you even begin to study non physical phenomena? In the end, Tesla went on to fall in love with a pigeon. As eccentric as that was, there’s a certain kind of logic to it. We have to love to truly know and a big problem today is that we try to know things without love, without experiencing, without God.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Good points, IB.
      As we’ve said before, quoting Bill Johnson, “A man who has an encounter is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.” This is why atheist arguments have never really had any affect on me. I “know” better in that regard. What I mean is that I understand there’s other kinds of knowledge and truth, and I have experienced it first-hand (like knowing my wife).

      But I have an engineering background so I also understand a little bit about geekdom. 🙂 I totally respect and think highly of scientific truth and logic. BOTH are needed for a healthy culture. Each have their place and there’s no need to be dismiss one in favor of the other (unless you have an agenda or can’t tolerate people who have a different viewpoint than you).

      To quote Paul, it’s like the hand telling the foot I have no need of you. It’s a bit silly and immature, frankly. And this is where I think the whole discussion gets off track.

  3. Wally Fry says:

    You know, Mel, this basic problem exists on another lever in churches. Please don’t misunderstand; I believe correct doctrine matters a lot. Having said that, I see too many cases of that being substituted for the personal relationship Jesus wants with all of us. The demon in Gadara understood some eschatology quite well when he asked Jesus why he was being tormented before the time, yet he certainly had no relationship with Jesus.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Wally, I couldn’t agree with you more. 🙂 As I said in the post, the devil used the Bible to lie to Jesus. Doctrine is definitely important, but it’s not more important than our relationship with Christ, or our union with Christ and with one another. These are the things Jesus said would show the world we’re His (John 13:35) and show the world that God loves them the same (John 17:21-23).

  4. Lily Pierce says:

    Well said. This makes me think of the “letter of the law vs. spirit of the law” issue (Jesus defending healing on the sabbath to the elites). It’s not that the letter of the law doesn’t matter at all, but the letter is meaningless without the spirit, and we should take both into account.

  5. hawk2017 says:

    Amen.:)

  6. hawk2017 says:

    I’m sorry, I really don’t this verson of the verse. Our God never would say ‘stick’ . I think this ‘New version’ brings God down to us, not Us UP to God.

  7. John Branyan says:

    This is good, Mel. There is a growing sentiment among humans that Google is the final source of all knowledge. If Google can’t answer a question, the question is irrelevant. Those who demand empirical, hard evidence to back-up every claim don’t have any empirical, hard evidence that such demands are appropriate.

    • Mel Wild says:

      It only shows how scientistic we’ve become. We confuse data with knowledge.

      “Those who demand empirical, hard evidence to back-up every claim don’t have any empirical, hard evidence that such demands are appropriate.”

      Very true. This is the ironic thing about so many of the arguments against God. Especially, in the subject of morality or consciousness. A lot of question-begging.

  8. Nan says:

    And the beat goes one …

    I’m right.
    No, you’re wrong … I’m right.
    I have proof, so I’m right
    No, you don’t have “proof,” so you’re wrong.
    You’re confused.
    No, you’re the one that’s confused.

    • Nan says:

      The beat goes ON … don’t know where that “e” came from!

    • Mel Wild says:

      Well, it may appear like that, or is like that if no one is listening to one another and each party is stuck in their dogma, Nan (both believers and unbelievers). But no one grows as a human being that way. And the different ways we know a thing and experience life is significant, and we should be able to listen to one another’s point of view and learn from it, even if we’re not convinced of their position, wouldn’t you agree?

      As mature human beings, we should have an honest discussion and push back on or challenge a point when it doesn’t sound right to us. Of course, that conversation would be severely limited on a blog. But, otherwise, what’s the point of saying anything meaningful to us?

  9. Something that occurs to me Mel, there’s nothing so crazy as, “a little bit of religion” or a “little bit of science,” for that matter. All that “google knowing” often leads people to take a couple of half truths and a few lies and just run with it. So often what is missing is the fabric, the structure, the context for the data we are taking in. Pop culture science has just been brutalized and now it often resembles a pharmaceutical ad with side effects that are worse then the cure. That has kind of happened in our faith too, a lot of half truths and misconceptions. The problem being, we have to be willing to consider the possibility that we don’t always know what we think we know.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Yup, people seem to confuse data and information with knowledge. And you’re right about the half-truths. Oftentimes, there’s several layers and levels of truth and understanding the same thing. I think this precisely why people don’t hear each other. One is speaking at one level and other is speaking at a different level.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.