The late Peter Marshall illustrated our trust or lack of trust with the following story: Suppose a child has a broken toy. He brings the toy to his father, saying that he himself has tried to fix it and has failed. He asks his father to do it for him. The father gladly agrees . . . takes the toy . . and begins to work. Now obviously the father can do his work most quickly and easily if the child make no attempt to interfere, simply sits quietly watching, or even goes about other business, with never a doubt that the toy is being successfully mended. But, what do most of God's children do in such a situation? Often we stand by offering a lot of meaningless advice and some rather silly criticism. We even get impatient and try to help, and so get our hands in the Father's way, generally hindering the work. . . Finally, in our desperation, we may even grab the toy out of the Father's hands entirely, saying rather bitterly that we hadn't really thought He could fix it anyway . . . that we'd given him a chance and He had failed us.
Our normal expectations about reality are created by a social consensus. We are taught how to see and understand the world. the trick of socialization is to convince us that the descriptions we agree upon define the limits of the real world. What we call reality is only one way of seeing the world, a way that is supported by social consensus.
A diplomat is a person who: -always knows what to talk about, but doesn't always talk about what he knows. -always tries to settle problems created by other diplomats. -can always make himself misunderstood. -can bring home the bacon without spilling the beans. -can say the nastiest things in the nicest way. -can tell you to go to hell so tactfully that you look forward to the trip. -comes right out and says what he thinks when he agrees with you. -divides his time between running for office and running for cover. -lets you do all the talking while he gets what he wants. -puts his cards on the table, but still has some up each sleeve. -will lay down your life for his country.
We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds through our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.
It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of thought.