Jesus: Radical in His Excellence

Humans at their best are a wonder. Humans at their worst are a horror. And humans in their everyday mode?

Well, they vary so much that it’s hard to generalize. But few, it seems, strive for their best in all matters.

Here’s something that a lot of Christians might not know—or keep in mind— about Jesus’ reputation in the First Century:

“And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things well.” Mark 7:37a

They found this astonishing that a person would be excellent like that. And what’s more, his followers were expected to be excellent, too:

Continue reading →
2 Comments

Dysfunctional Christianity

I think that Christianity is in a state of emergency. There is a huge difference between what it is supposed to be, and what it actually is. Let me try to explain briefly what surely deserves many articles to treat thoroughly.

Christianity is supposed to be a human subculture in which people honor God for his righteousness, wisdom, and love, and strive to live in his “image” themselves in all their “ways”, both in their own thoughts and in the how they treat one another. They are supposed to be able to learn how to get along well with one another, to grow and to mature in their thoughts and character, and to come to understand deep and meaningful things. They’re supposed to be able to work well together, and in all this, should serve as some sort of a “light” in this dark world.

Continue reading →
1 Comment

“The Proof’s in the Pudding”

Here’s an old discussion forum post of mine, slightly edited to fit the blog genre better.

I’ve seen several people in online discussions about faith suggest that the true or best test of whether someone has a “saving faith” (or whatever you might rather have it called) is in whether you see the effects of that faith played out in their lives. In other words, they suggest that if the faith is really there, it will lead to the good “fruit” of godly behavior.

Continue reading →
Leave a comment

Messy Thinking in Religion

Having made a study for over a decade about the shortcomings of people’s cognitive habits, it’s an obvious question: How does that play out when it comes to religion? Do people tend to make the standard errors in thinking on religious topics, too? Or do they somehow tend to do better when it comes to religion? Or worse?

Well, I can tell you this much so far: They don’t tend to do better when it comes to religion than they do in their casual daily reasoning about secular things. This much, I can demonstrate by simply walking through the things they publish and examining the numbers and types of errors made. But more troubling still is this: They may actually tend to do worse when it comes to religion, precisely because the way that so many practice their religion, when religious topics arise, they’re not actually thinking about it at all, but are merely reciting memorized sayings to themselves. That’s a different process from thinking. It’s largely a conditioned response—a trained habit: When this comes up, say that to yourself. When this question arises, tell yourself that answer. When someone makes this observation, you answer with this other observation. When someone mentions this life problem, you recite the trite saying we’re also supposed to say to ourselves in response to it.

Again, this kind of mental activity is not thinking really, but a shortcut that cognitive scientists generally refer to as heuristics. As it turns out, there’s other stuff you can do with your mind–other than actual thinking—other than posing problems and analyzing how things are and examining potential interpretations of a situation, etc. These kinds of things do require thinking (which requires slow and deliberate, high-energy-burn mental processes), whereas other types of mental activity I’m talking about can be done almost instantaneously, and do not require any high-energy burn or original work in the mind.

When it comes to religion, my observation is that for a great many, they are so deeply conditioned in what to believe—in how to answer this question—or in how to reply to that statement—or in what do say to yourself or someone else when this or that happens—that relatively few have developed a habit of doing actual algorithmic and reflective thinking about things for themselves. Rather–and this is not good news–they tend to reply with these heuristic responses that are instantaneous shortcuts to thinking, and that don’t require more than a second of mental attention. It’s about as close to mindlessness as one can get for an activity that happens in the mind.

Now, let me stop right here to state for the record that the systems in our brain that carry out these heuristic shortcuts were designed by none other than God himself! They are not there as the result of some mental deformity. Nor are they there as the result of some curse on mankind at the event commonly referred to as “The Fall”. No, they are part of God’s wonderful design for the human mind. They are not the whole of that design, mind you, but only part of it. And therein lies the problem.

The rest of our mental faculties—those “slow” processes of algorithmic and reflective thinking that deal with analysis and problem solving and executive function and diligent, evidence/weighing decision making—these faculties are quite underdeveloped in most of us, as in our culture at large. The individual tends toward “cognitive miserliness”, where the will is lacking to “spend” the energy (do the work) necessary to get good at such thinking. And meanwhile, living in a society made up of a high number of such cognitive misers doesn’t help us to rise above it ourselves. When you live in a heuristics-rich/thinking-poor society, any good and robust thinking you end up doing is likely to be done despite the habits of those around you, and not because of them.

In a religion such as we can discern from the Bible texts, you have an all-wise, all-knowing God whose moral and cognitive excellence inspires humans to think and operate on a higher level. The excellence of God inspires the human (potentially) to be more like his Creator–to make more of himself by trying–to make better and fuller use of the faculties he was given by the nature of what kind of being he was created to be.

But what should we expect to see in a religious camp that is not duly impressed with the high cognitive/moral example of God? Would we expect to see many members rising above the dull societal average for thinking and morality in order to be more like a God that does not impress them much?

I would not.

And isn’t that what we tend to see across the churches, generally speaking?

I think it is.

As I write this, I have in mind a recent post about being thrust into the spotlight at jury duty. (I wish you’d take a couple of minutes to read it now.) It’s about how most of us don’t deliberately make much of ourselves cognitively, and about how interesting it is when we’re suddenly on the hot seat with important questions being put to us.

This happens in religion, too. Having never been trained in the best practices of thinking and philosophy, in religion, we can find ourselves in conversations that are “above our pay grade”, so to speak—discussing topics we don’t know much about. But even so, if we’re good at self-observation (which is slightly harder than observing others accurately), we may well catch ourselves merely saying stuff—not because we have analyzed the situation and know what is right to say—but because we have got stuff memorized, and we have got ourselves a habit of saying stuff like this in situations like these. And out it comes, with no referee present to call it fair or foul. We’ve just said it, and there it is. And questions like the following (about what we’ve just said) may or may not ever see the light of day:

  • Do I really believe what I just said?
  • How do I know that?
  • Do I know that?
  • Why did it say it so confidently, if I’m not really sure?
  • Whoever taught me to say that thing—where did he or she learn it from?
  • Could I prove what I just said if someone called me on it?
  • Have I ever listed my doubts or questions about what I just said?
  • Have I ever gone diligently through those doubts and questions to see if they can be answered well?
  • What if I were wrong about this?
  • Should I retract my statement?

Now, I believe that these questions are the sort generally involved in “giving careful thought” to ourselves, and “examining” ourselves, which practice the Bible commends in several places.

Give careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your ways.

Proverbs 4:26–niv

Now this is what the Lord Almighty says: “Give careful thought to your ways.

Haggai 1:5–NIV

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

2 Corinthians 13:5–NIV

Interestingly, we frequently see others say things that they have not duly vetted first—things they have not given careful thought to, nor examined, nor tested first. (It’s easier to see it when they do it than when we do it ourselves.) The more we observe this—and take the time to make note of it and the typical behaviors that accompany it—the more likely we might be to notice when we do it ourselves.

I can attest that these sorts of errors are very common in our casual lives. I think that most of us are not well equipped to avoid them, and that even if we were to set out for some unusual occasion to write a short essay on some religious topic over a long weekend, we would not be in good enough cognitive shape to do it well. We have so many bad mental habits that are common in our culture, that we cannot perceive every one of them when it shows up in our argumentation. Sure, some of them we will spot right away, just as we might spot some of our grammatical or spelling errors. But a lot of where we go wrong is in things about which we simply have not yet learned better. So the error we are making is, to us, sound thinking, and is not in need to analysis or correction. We will not spot it because we don’t know how–and because we don’t have enough general knowledge of the scriptures to know when our views are at odds with the various teachings there.

Some years ago, I began wishing for a grant to fund a study in which I’d analyze episodes of talk show hosts for fact, logic, and sourcing—to score them on how they did on whichever sample episode was chosen for the project. I thought it would be a fascinating study to see how often bad logic is used—or how often error is put forth as fact, and so forth. And I now have in mind to do similar work, based on religious primers put forth by various organizations–where I take their official introductory videos and analyze them for they quality of their mental work. After some brief sampling (and years of pondering such things), I imagine that we’d discover that the standard fare is in quite rough shape, and that a large percentage of what is put forth in religious instruction is in need of considerable correction itself.

And I’m talking about facts, as well as about the kind of reasoning that is used in support of the things we think ought to be taught as fact. I think that if we were to get ourselves into this sort of analytical mode, we’d end up finding much cause for concern the state of things. But not many people seem to be very comfortable staying in that analytical mode. They don’t like seeing the mess–and don’t want to admit to the extent of it. It is emotionally easier for them to sweep it under the rug, and to pretend that it’s probably not all that important in the overall scheme of things. And this can make mindless church activity even all the more attractive as an escape of sorts.

And that kind of mindless behavior seems quite common. And it would also seem quite “normal”—except to someone who has a high appreciation for the fact that God and Jesus and the apostles and prophets are not like that. They would see it as messed up. Twisted. Irresponsible.

And it is.

Our memorized, memish sayings that we automatically repeat to others and to ourselves—the faculty for this was created by God. But it is mean to be managed well, such that we don’t train ourselves to repeat dumb junk to ourselves and others, as we so often do. It’s an amazingly useful tool to always have good and wise and righteous and useful sayings on the tips of our tongues. But when quality control has been compromised, and it’s turned out that the stuff that’s always on the mind is trite and shallow and foolish, then we’re not making good use of those mental faculties God gave us. This is why the Bible has those exhortations about examining oneself and giving careful thought to one’s ways. Without that, we’re doomed to end up saying dumb junk to ourselves and to others. And from there, it snowballs into a messy religion—which is quite what we are seeing today in our society.

And I suppose it has always been like this, for Jesus himself noted quite famously that there is indeed a narrow gate and a wide one, and that many will travel the latter. I think it’s unrealistic to expect that the wide gate will ever be untraveled by the masses. No, it seems to be the message of the Bible that it’s always the few, and not the many, who will get things right.

I write this post, therefore, to encourage those few who may be bewildered about the sad cognitive/moral state of things at church. I’d encourage you to remember that church is not the Savior, but Jesus is. Church is not the Creator. It is not the Image. It is not the “way”. No, Jesus is. If righteous, diligent, honest thinking doesn’t happen to be the standard at your church, it’s still the standard in Jesus’ mind—and you can still adopt it, even if you can’t find a church that wants it, too. You can still train yourself to be godly by use of the scriptures, even if it should happen that you can’t find a fellowship of like-minded believers in your town.

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Romans 12:2–NIV

Many, who think they’re doing a good thing, merely train themselves in the hearsay of church, rather than training themselves how to think the thoughts that God and Jesus think. And having chosen the wrong standard, they have cut themselves off from the source of all good thinking. They have followed the churches away from God and Jesus, and are in no position to figure that out until they begin to study and think through the scriptures for themselves. And upon doing that, they are discovering a whole new world, so far beyond the run-of-the-mill cognitive life of the average joe, for they are tapping into the mind of God, where they can learn at their own risk—whether well or poorly—to think God’s thoughts to whatever extent humans are capable of that.

And let me encourage you with this: Whatever may be the limits of all that, they run much further than many at church will ever realize.

Leave a comment

How Instructive!

How instructive to learn about you
That you had decided you wanted to be
An “Influencer”
Before you had ever learned anything worth
Sharing with others.

Perhaps you could go learn to be a
Mature human before wanting
Other humans to count you
A prime example of humanity.

As it is, you are lusting after
The high esteem of stupid people.

Leave a comment

The Fool

The fool thinks that only the goodness of his intentions should be counted, and not the wisdom of what he has done. He will not be held to account for the latter, and if you bring it up, you are the monster.

He thinks he already won the moral victory by wanting to do what he thought was good in the first place. He’s incapable (at present) of reasoning that he is as much responsible for the outcome of his actions as he is for the intention of them. Don’t expect him to be any more rational in this than are the Appalachian snake handlers in what they do. He is blinded to it, and capable only of seeing the one thing: that he intended good.

He will be offended—outraged, even—when you bring up anything else. And he will cheat fact, logic, and sourcing in an attempt to deny you the right to discuss the whole of the matter. That’s what fools do. He will think his case deserves to be heard, and that if only everyone could hear it, he would be vindicated in the eyes of all those who are reasonable.

He has no idea what it is to run the gauntlet, to have one’s ideas put to the test of fact, logic, and sourcing. Since he has not tested his own ideas—but merely assumed them just and fair and reasonable since they emanated (if they did) from his own mind—he will be flummoxed when he cannot prevail with them in the public forum. He will conclude that he has been wronged, and that the people did not listen to him—not because his case is unworthy, but because they are unworthy.

And on his way out, he will tell himself whatever it takes to satisfy him that he need look no further into the wisdom of his ways. This kind of thinking is what got him into the mess, and it’s what delivers him away from the forum, still a fool.

He leaves a mess in his wake.

This is what fools do.

Pretty much by definition, they do not learn.

Leave a comment

On Being Thrust into the Spotlight on Jury Duty

In 2018 I was summoned for jury duty and witnessed the most amazing display of human beings operating outside of their natural habitat. Here’s what I saw, lightly edited from my original Facebook post.

I was summoned for jury duty today. They didn’t get far enough down the list to get to my name, but I noticed something—several things, actually—that seems worth the time to point out. When a regular guy gets up in the morning, he’s just a regular joe. He’s not a philospoher. He’s not a jurist or a statesman or a logician or a writer or a theologian or an ethicist. No, he’s just a regular joe. And then he gets to the jury pool, where suddenly, a few people are keenly interested in his thoughts on some particular subjects.

Suddenly, the man having never before been asked about such things, is asked in front of many people to share his views. It’s as if the curtains were raised, the spotlight were on, and the audience were waiting with bated breath to hear his views. But if he’s an average guy, he has no formal philosophy. He’s never developed an exhaustive method of thinking things through. He has no particular set of rules for his outlook on the world, other than the simple rule of thinking whatever seems best at any given time. And with that, there’s little chance he can see where his own answers are headed before they get there. He just starts talking in reply to the questions—likely having little idea what will come out of his mouth.

It’s not like he’s ever rehearsed such things. In fact, by the time he finishes his first sentence, he may well have reached a conclusion that he didn’t have in mind when he began that sentence. He’s just not a sophisticated being. He’s shooting from the hip. It’s reflex; best-guess material.

No one among them says, “Oh, I’ve thought about this a lot over the years, and here is my answer.” No one says, “Well, I know that great minds have disagreed on this question throughout history, but here’s my take on it.” No, they just say what comes to mind, and that’s that. They’re not talking as if their words were going on the record to be made into an epic film someday, or as if a Shakespeare were taking them down to turn them into a classic play. They don’t know if their thoughts are worthy of such esteem or not; they’re just talking off the cuff. And that’s very interesting to me. About us, that is. About what kind of people we are—generally, so casually considered. So unmethodical and inattentive to our own philosophies. So unprepared for the quiz. So far from being ready to be quoted in the newspaper.

Most simply think what seems best to them to think in the moment, with little idea how good that thinking is. And that’s very interesting to me. It seems to be what most of our culture is generally like. It’s not so much, “Is this going to be on the test?” as it is, “Oh, I didn’t *know* there was a test!” Or “I didn’t know anybody was paying attention!” Or, “I didn’t really think that what a person thinks matters very much.”

Well, some certainly don’t think it does. But I’ve been thinking about that for many years now, and I think it matters much. In fact, I think that the way we think is one of the most important things about us. So, to me, it’s very interesting when people are put on the spot with these jury-selection questions. It’s a rare experience to see so many people talking about such things in one meeting. I wonder, though: What if we as people talked about such things every week? Would we be better at it? Would we be more streamlined? More consistent in our judgments? More methodical? More principles-based? More deliberate? What if we were the sort to give careful thought to our ways? How would the world be different then?

EDITED TO ADD: Kay points out in retrospect that at the time in history when trial by jury became a thing, Americans were being philosophers at home and at the market and at the city gates. And I am reminded by her thoughts of Alexis De Tocqueville’s observations about what Early Americans were like:

I have lived a great deal with the people in the United
States, and I cannot express how much I admire their experience and their good sense. An American should never be allowed to speak of Europe; for he will then probably display a vast deal of presumption and very foolish pride. He will take up with those crude and vague notions which are so useful to the ignorant all over the world. But if you question him respecting his own
country, the cloud which dimmed his intelligence will immediately disperse; his language will become as clear and as precise as his thoughts. He will inform you what his rights are, and by what means he exercises them; he will be able to point out the customs which obtain in the political world. You will find that he is well acquainted with the rules of the administration, and that he is familiar with the mechanism of the laws. The citizen of the United States does not acquire his practical science and his
positive notions from books; the instruction he has acquired may 376 have prepared him for receiving those ideas, but it did not furnish them. The American learns to know the laws by participating in the act of legislation; and he takes a lesson in the forms of government from governing. The great work of society is ever going on beneath his eyes, and, as it were, under his hands.
In the United States politics are the end and aim of
education; in Europe its principal object is to fit men for
private life. The interference of the citizens in public affairs
is too rare an occurrence for it to be anticipated beforehand.
Upon casting a glance over society in the two hemispheres, these
differences are indicated even by its external aspect.
In Europe we frequently introduce the ideas and the habits
of private life into public affairs; and as we pass at once from
the domestic circle to the government of the State, we may
frequently be heard to discuss the great interests of society in the same manner in which we converse with our friends. The Americans, on the other hand, transfuse the habits of public life into their manners in private; and in their country the jury is introduced into the games of schoolboys, and parliamentary forms
are observed in the order of a feast.

democracy in america. Alexis de tocqueville. 1835-1840

I think, then, that times are not now as good as they were then, in this respect. I think that America has lost something valuable. I don’t mean to exaggerate my point, as if Americans were all philosophical giants once upon a time. But if the American consciousness can be lowered since 1835, surely it could be heightened again.

Leave a comment

Unpredictability

To be unpredictable may be the last thing the fool has to protect.

Leave a comment

I Have Done My Best

I have done my best
To make the difference
I had hoped to make.

I did not succeed as I had hoped,
And not enough to justify going on,
But I have most certainly found out
What time it is.

And now I know things that many others may never know,
Including the pain of trying to help the prickly
And the joy of knowing those who were ready to be loved.

Leave a comment

I Knew A Good Man

I knew a good man
And if I’m right about that,
And accounting for the fact that
Most of us are rather messy and prickly
And inconsistent in various ways,
He was a good man indeed.

And you could tell it by the way he
Treated people.

And it strikes me now as odd to have so little further
To say about him,
Except that it seems to me I have
Already said that very greatest thing
That could be said about him.
Haven’t I?

So it hardly seemed worth mentioning
That he was funny
And that he cooked the best breakfasts ever
And took me fishing.

He was a good man
And that did something
To my fledgling years
To get me started in a certain direction myself,
Valuing such things
And finding a treasure
In a life many others
Might count as of little merit
In the grand scheme of things.

But I wonder if I have not noticed
The most important thing of all
And cherished it in my heart,
Where it can really matter the most
For the best reasons.

Leave a comment