Resources: S1E2 "Saving Truth Chapter 1"

Every week, we share the resources that we referenced in the most recent episode of the podcast. These could be books, articles, movies, and anything else we mentioned that you might want a link to. If the resource is available for free access online, the link will take you right to it. If not, the link will take you to information on how to get the resource for yourself (for instance, the Amazon link for a book).

If you want to dig deeper, these are some places you can start:

S1E2: Saving Truth Chapter 1

  1. “Perceived Social Presence Reduces Fact-Checking”, Youjung Jun, Rachel Meng, and Gita Ventakatrmani. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 6, 2017.

  2. The Grim Conclusions of the Largest-Ever Study of Fake News”, Robinson Meyer. The Atlantic, March 8, 2018.

  3. “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”, John Ioannidus. PLOS Medicine, August 30, 2005.

  4. "Biomedical Science Studies are Shockingly Hard to Reproduce”, Adam Hoffman.

  5. [NOTE: This article contains mature subject matter.]“Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship”, James A. Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose. Areo, October 2, 2018.

  6. “Sokal Squared: 3 Scholars, a Hoax, and the Future of Academia.” Cameron McAllister and Nathan Rittenhouse. Thinking Out Loud podcast.

5 Likes

Hi friends, here’s the .mp3 of this episode:

3 Likes

It looks like there are two different editions of the book. One is about 160 pages and the latest is about 250 pages. I got the most recent one.

The questions were put forth to the listeners, “What is my Post-Truth problem”?, and “What could I do differently”? in regards to this.

My answer:
Is denial of a problem the first sign of a problem? Because we’re all going to deny we’re part of the post-truth problem probably. I am a conservative, I guess, but I don’t watch cable tv news or any of the predictable right wing radio shows on a regular basis. I make a point of reading sites like Vox , The Atlantic, and Huffpo, to understand how the other side is thinking.

But that is just in regard to politics. It will take further thought in other realms to fully examine any confirmation bias or post-truth attitudes that I might have. I’m sure I have fallen short in these arenas in one way or another. For instance, sometimes I start thinking of how I’m going to answer someone before they’re through speaking. That is kind of a way of assuming that you already know what they’re going to say.

So I guess I could admit in these instances that the truth of what they’re trying to say, their “truth” as it may be, is not important because I’ve already assumed that before they’re done talking. The way they look or talk could unintentionally contribute to my lack of wanting to hear them out. I should always let someone finish their thought before assuming their “truth” for them. Of course, if a conversation gets out of control, sometimes you have to cut people off or end the discussion. But generally speaking I should hear them out.

I’m sure there’s much more. That’s all I have for now. Thanks for the Podcast and discussion. I have listened to Abdu Murray and the rest of the team much on Youtube and podcasts. I’ve been a long time listener of Ravi Zacharias.

8 Likes

@ReSound-TruckDriver, You bring up a great point on the stereotypes associated with different media outlets. I’ve thought about how we’ve dehumanized ourselves by picking sides. A person used to be known by their family, their town’s traditions, their livelihood. Now as smaller communities have given way to larger communities and global news channels/social media, we seem to identify with others based on political positions. Local newspapers of course reflected the town’s biases, but those were based more on a community’s collective identity built over decades rather than an individual’s choice of thinking liberally or conservatively. Now, technology has removed media’s physical constraints, and it seems as if identity has gotten more superficial. Globalized lifestyles have removed more traditional forms of local/family identity, but we still crave to be known and belong, so perhaps national channels have become more identity-forming than they have previously been with this new cultural void?

Your thought here is especially powerful and convicting in my own life,

Is denial of a problem the first sign of a problem? Because we’re all going to deny we’re part of the post-truth problem probably.

Saving Truth was powerful in my own life because I think I had a post-Truth mindset towards Christianity. I wanted it to be true, but I got to a point where I didn’t think it actually was. I was holding conflicting viewpoints without really caring they were incoherent, and while I am thankful the desire for Christianity to be true led me to pick up a copy of the book, I’m frustrated at myself for being willing to hold such an inconsistency for a long time.

6 Likes

Globalized lifestyles have removed more traditional forms of local/family identity, but we still crave to be known and belong, so perhaps national channels have become more identity-forming than they have previously been with this new cultural void?

When you say “channels” I take that to mean constructs, ideas, or attitudes. Though you could also mean people forming identities from actual tv channels or radio stations, which I also think occurs on some level.

But when you talk about most traditional forms of identity and belonging no longer having a place in modern society I completely agree, especially, in Western nations. I think many cultures in the East and Middle East still have a strong bearing in familial bonds and culture that forms their identity. I think that’s why we see, here in America, that foreigners who come to live here have a greater sense of identity and belonging within their own communities than most generational Americans. I can’t help but envy the way some of these communities stick together and help each other while they watch the rest of America destroy itself. I may disagree with their religion or some their customs, but they seem to be a lot more grounded in who they are than many of us it would seem. It’s a sad testimony of where this country is at now, as you mentioned, “picking sides.”

I have not read all of Saving Truth yet but it’s encouraging to hear of the profound impact it had on your life. Especially in that it helped you to get a grounding in your faith. I think, regardless of age, this is something we all have to be careful about. Yet times of questioning are natural also, and many emerge from these even stronger in their belief and rationale for it.

One thing I see a lot, and have been susceptible to, is using the Post-Truth culture as a way of rationalizing sin. You know such as “our society is so far gone we just have to go along with some of this or we won’t be able to function within it” or something along those lines.

5 Likes

Hello. First of all I am so thankful to be reading this book as a group. I know I am going to learn so much more than I would if I had just read it on my own.

What really resonated with me in this first chapter is that I am lazy in seeking to verify whether something I have heard or seen via media is true. As I was looking at the links shared, I thought to myself, I don’t have time or interest to look at all those. And since I have listened to and researched much of Ravi Zacharias teachings over the years I just automatically trust his endorsement of Abdu Murray. Here lies my shortfall as how many Facebook posts have I shared that appealed to my emotions but wasn’t completely true?

6 Likes

First of all, I also want to say : THANKS, for this podcast and this community!

Reading the thirst two chapters of this book, I recognized: “Wow, this post-truth-mentality- that’s so me! I do have so often put feelings over truth!”

Most of the time, I didn’t check if what I belief or what I know is really true.
I just wanted it to be true and didn’t put effort in checking like anything.
Because of this mindset, I didn’t start conversations with unbelievers, or non-christians about my christian-faith.
I was somehow afraid of their arguments or, of their points of view, because I thought, I knew they wouldn’t agree with my point of view.
So I just stopped talking about things I knew, could lead into conversations that brings disagreement.
I felt good, so I did it this way.

For me, reading this book and also listening to the podcast, is really a challenge.
I started to reflect on how I am part of this “post-truth-culture”, and how I can learn to choose wisely, when it comes to the question, “Do I choose the truth, or the good feeling right now?”

3 Likes

Such thoughtful people on here. This is such a timely book for me. I have been in public FB discussions with some longtime friends of mine. One is a Unitarian and the other person wouldn’t tell me his worldview bc he wanted to stick to politics. He is intelligent and tries to use all manner of logic to point out my shortcomings. Long story short, My U. friend created a private group where the 3 of us could more comfortably discuss our worldviews in depth. She wanted to open this conversation bc I posted Ravi’s quote that any worldview has to answer 4 questions: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny(hope I have that right- it is early here) and it intrigued her. I am super excited at this opportunity bc she was my best friend in highschool(yrs ago) and I am the only conservative Christian she knows. I have stuck by her by the grace of God for that reason- I love her and want her to know the truth. So grateful for the many resources at RZIM and for shared wisdom. Iron sharpens iron! I could go on but will make this short.

1 Like