At  Point of View, we are dedicated to helping you to find truth in a world that no longer believes in absolute truth. Many in our culture have abandoned the search for truth in this post-truth world.

As Christians, we realize the problem is even worse because most people are not thinking biblically about important issues. My recent interview with George Barna documented that most people (Christians and non-Christians) do not have a Christian worldview. And when you look at both Christian belief coupled with Christian behavior, we see that the problem is even worse.

Social scientists as well as pollsters have been warning that American society is becoming more and more dominated by moral anarchy. Writing in the early 1990s, James Patterson and Peter Kim said in The Day America Told the Truth that there was no moral authority in America. “We choose which laws of God we believe in. There is absolutely no moral consensus in this country as there was in the 1950s, when all our institutions commanded more respect.” Essentially, we live in a world of moral anarchy.

The first step in finding truth in this post-truth world is to begin to develop biblical discernment. This can help us sort out what is true and what is false. Colossians 2:8 warns: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” We need to develop discernment so that we are not taken captive by false ideas.

The Bible often admonishes us to use discernment (1 Samuel 25:32-33; 1 Kings 3:10-11; 4:29; Psalm 119:66; Proverbs 2:3; Daniel 2:14; Philippians 1:9). That requires that we apply biblical truth to the various facts, claims, and opinions being tossed about. Here are seven techniques often used to keep us from finding the truth:

1. Equivocation — the use of vague terms. Someone can start off using language we think we understand and then veer off into a new meaning. Most of us are well aware of the fact that religious cults are often guilty of this. A cult member might say that he believes in salvation by grace. But what he really means is that you have to join his cult and work your way toward salvation. Make people define the vague terms they use.

2. Card stacking — the selective use of evidence. Don’t jump on the latest bandwagon and intellectual fad without checking the evidence. Many advocates are guilty of listing all the points in their favor while ignoring the serious points against it. If you watch any of the “talking head” shows you know that most participants only mention facts that support their view and even try to change the subject if a moderator brings up a contrary point.

3. Appeal to authority — relying on authority to the exclusion of logic and evidence. Just because an expert says it, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. We live in a culture that worships experts, but not all experts are right. Hiram’s Law says: “If you consult enough experts, you can confirm any opinion.” We shouldn’t ignore what experts might say, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that a consensus of experts makes something true.

4. Ad hominem — Latin for “against the man.” People using this tactic attack the person instead of dealing with the validity of their argument. Often the soundness of an argument is inversely proportional to the amount of ad hominem rhetoric. If there is evidence for the position, proponents usually argue the merits of the position. When evidence is lacking, they attack the critics.

5. Straw man argument — making your opponent’s argument seem so ridiculous that it is easy to attack and knock down. This can usually be easy to spot because you find yourself sayings things like: “What a minute. No one is talking about deporting every immigrant” or “Just because we want to build up the military, doesn’t mean that we are going to eliminate social services.”

6. Sidestepping — dodging the issue by changing the subject. Politicians do this in press conferences by not answering the question asked by the reporter, but instead answering a question they wish someone had asked. Professors sometimes do that when a student points out an inconsistency or a leap in logic.

7. Red herring — going off on a tangent (from the practice of luring hunting dogs off the trail with the scent of a herring fish). You need to be on the alert, especially when someone in a debate changes the subject. They may want to argue their points on more familiar ground, or they may know they cannot win their argument on the relevant issue at hand.

Our goal at Point of View is to help you develop biblical discernment by bringing to you experts and articles that are often ignored by the mainstream media. We are dedicated to educate you, equip you, and empower you.

We educate you through our two-hour program each day. But we also want to equip you by posting articles on the Point of View website. And we encourage you to read the articles we post. We want you to do the research and check out the facts. That was important in the past, but it is even more crucial in this post-truth world we live in today.

Finally, we want to empower you. On a regular basis we post an Action Item. It is important that you not only learn the truth but also apply it to the social, cultural, and political issues of the day.