Hi, this week we have been exploring truth. We've
seen that truth gives us something solid to stand
on. We've seen that it can be discovered and
even surprise us. But that raises another key
question. In math, truth does not stand alone.
It depends on where we start. Every proof begins
with assumptions, and those assumptions shape
what follows. We saw this with geometry in the
previous week. For centuries, Euclid's geometry
was considered the truth. But when mathematicians
changed just one assumption, something quite
remarkable happened. New geometries appeared.
Literally, new worlds were created. Different
conclusions, yet still completely logical. The
reasoning did not break. The starting point changed.
And that changed everything. Math makes this
crystal clear. If you change the assumptions,
you can change what is true within that system.
Now, let's consider how this shows up beyond
math. Clearly, we all have starting points, assumptions
about the world, about people, about truth itself.
And those assumptions shape what we believe.
You can see this clearly in how people approach
something like the Bible. Some begin with the
assumption that it must be read literally, like
direct statements of truth. Others begin with
the assumption that it is a collection of writings,
stories, and poetry, and history that need to
be understood in context. Different starting
points, different conclusions. And often the
disagreement is not just about the conclusion,
it is about the assumptions underneath it. And
sometimes it's not just the assumptions that
matter, it is how we reason from them. In math,
we are careful about that. We do not just say
something is true. We show why it follows. But
outside of math, it is easy to slip into a different
pattern. Sometimes, something is treated as true
simply because it comes from a trusted source.
and then that source is trusted because it is
assumed to be true. That kind of reasoning circles
back on itself. Now, that does not mean the conclusion
is wrong, but it does mean we have not really
examined how we got there. And when we do not
examine our reasoning, we can become more focused
on defending conclusions rather than understanding
them. Math invites something different. It invites
us to slow down, to look carefully at our starting
points, and to ask whether what follows truly
makes sense. Because truth does not just depend
on logic. It also depends on where we begin and
how honestly we follow the path from there. I've
noticed when I become aware that something shifts
or changes in me, I become less defensive, and
more curious. So my question today is, what assumptions
am I starting with? And how is my reasoning shaping
what I believe is true?