Skip to main content

Minimizing Self-Deception

Over the past few months I have read two novels by Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum and The Name of the Rose. Both are interesting if not quite easy reads, but there is one strand that is common between them (besides the obvious, of religious themes touched upon in both) that I think warrants discussion, and that is the ability of the human mind to see patterns in evidence that are not really there.

In Foucault's Pendulum, a group of men make up a historical narrative stringing together a series of facts to make an argument for a great Templar plan. They don't believe it and know the plan is fake but, the whole thing backfires when a key person who isn't in on the deception hears and believes the plan.

In the Name of the Rose a monk named William of Baskerville (reference to Sherlock Holmes was intentional) investigates a series of murders. He sees a series of coincidences as evidence of an elegant plan on the part of the murderer. The murderer learns of William's theory and starts acting according to it which results in the discovery of his identity (something the murderer hoped for from the beginning).

These two books exemplify the human tendency to see patterns where they aren't there. It extends to every aspect of life including theology. I am a statistician by education and profession so I have a bit more training than most on how to avoid this. There are tools that can be used to avoid 'overfitting' a model to data or drawing false inferences and while I won't talk about those tools here I will talk about some key disciplines that can be used by the theologian (which all Christians are) to help avoid those problems.

The first key is to read a variety of theologians from a variety of perspectives/theological traditions from a variety of points in time. The Spirit moved differently in different ages among different groups. Culture also opens up different vistas. They will have access to data that you don't have access to. That may lead them to interpret the data that you share with them differently resulting in drawing different inferences or conclusions. Reading what they have to say will give you a richer model from which to work and should help reduce some of your own biases.

A second point is that usually there is not one basic model to rule them all. There needs to be some accounting for local variation and that needs to be baked in to the argument. For example, biblical authors were human and had specific experiences which impacted them and what they wrote. Account for it.

Third, make your presuppositions explicit. It is perfectly fine to have presuppositions and to have them impact your theory or arhument, but make it clear and try to assess the degree of certainty surrounding your presuppositions (and this is accomplished by going back to the first point).

Finally, what if one was to remove that one key verse from the Bible? Or what if one took away one key assumption? Would your whole argument fall apart? If so, that may be a sign that the argument has a lot of uncertainty around it and should be held cautiously.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…