As you can see from my previous posts, we are in a fierce battle of ideas. All of the actions going on in our nation and across the world all go back to the ideas we are being taught and are continuing to teach. Our thoughts are important because they direct our actions and behavior.
This is why we are to “take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). And Romans 12:2 instructs us, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Our ideas matter.
But behind our ideas there is another battle raging.
Ideas have consequences. And right now the ideas that are being taught are wreaking havoc on our society. In a previous post, I discussed five ideas that are damaging society. This post will take on the fifth idea: tolerance.
One thing I experienced when working on government programs, whether it was with the Department of Defense or NASA, was acronyms. I could have an entire conversation with another engineer and never use a real English word. Acronyms are so prolific that on your first day, you are given a multiple page document of acronyms and their meanings. It's like learning a foreign language.
Each government agency has their own set of acronyms – and those will even differ across programs within the same agency! Sometimes in the same program there are multiple meanings to the same acronym. So it is critical that you know the correct definition and usage of that acronym for the program you are supporting. Otherwise you will be completely lost.
But this isn’t unique to rocket engineering. For any discussion, it is crucial that we define our terms. Otherwise we might as well be speaking two different languages. We will never understand one another. Yet our culture has subtly redefined several words that can make fruitful and productive conversations near impossible. One of those words is “tolerance.”
Ideas have consequences. And right now the ideas that are being taught are wreaking havoc on our society. In a previous post, I discussed five ideas that are damaging society. This post will take on the fourth idea: autonomy and the rejection of authority.
One of the best parts of working at NASA was the collaborative design environment. Each system of the Ares I launch vehicle was responsible for their own design decisions. However, many times one system’s design would change and come in conflict with another system’s design. The issue would be brought to the engineering review board, where engineers and analysts would discuss the pros and cons of their proposed change. Engineers from other disciplines and vehicle systems would look for other possible vehicle impacts those changes may have. Then there would be lots of discussion on what the best path forward would be.
However, the Chief Engineer had the final authority on which design change would be approved. Even though each design team had the freedom to design its own system, it was not an autonomous freedom. The system design teams did not get to make the rules for the overall vehicle. They were each still subject to the overruling authority of the Chief Engineer.
This same principal applies to people.
Ideas have consequences. And right now the ideas that are being taught are wreaking havoc on our society. In a previous post, I discussed five ideas that are damaging society. This post will take on the third idea: relative truth.
I have a confession to make. I love doing those some-assembly-required projects. That’s probably why I also tend to take over on my kids’ LEGO kits too. And yes, I’m one of those who actually follows the instructions. But what if the instructions were incomplete or out of order? What if the instructions for an entirely different project were in the box? It would make a big difference if I did not have the absolute true instructions!
The truth matters! But somewhere we started being taught two very damaging ideas: that truth is relative to the individual and that truth does not exist at all. The questions shifted from “Is that true?” to “Is that true for you?” It is a subtle difference but has huge implications.
When there is no absolute truth, everything is up to the feelings and experiences of the individual. No wonder we are confused about gender identity and sexual orientation. No wonder we respond with violence and hate in discussions on ideas. No wonder we only see those with whom we disagree as evil, instead of just right or wrong. We don’t have an absolute truth to apply to those situations anymore.