Even the Wikipedia article on the topic leans this way in the wording of its title ... "List of biases in judgment and decision making" ... interesting how there's little discussion of how/when these biases are beneficial.
Although we live in a time of skepticism (especially with regard to our ability to know objectively and universally), the overwhelming message of scripture is that God speaks clearly ... the problem is we don't want to hear.
Here are three Biblical incidents I'm reminded of when this topic arises:
- Genesis 3:1 - when Satan comes to tempt Eve, the field is wide open ... he can take any approach imaginable; say or do anything. His (a) use of a question, and (b) focus on God's Word seem significant. If Satan can get us to question God's clear intent, the battle is largely over.
- Numbers 22 - Balaam is repeatedly warned about becoming involved with Balak. Yet he persists in asking God if it's ok. It's frightening to realize that God will give us the answer we want if we refuse to listen to him. Bret Carter had a nice editorial ("The Madness of the Prophet") on this passage a few months back.
- 1 Kings 18-19 - Elijah sees God act powerfully on Mt. Carmel and seems to think that God is about to "turn [Israel's] hearts back" to him (18:37)). The prophets of Baal are killed and the drought breaks. But revival does not break out. Jezebel threatens Elijah and he flees, eventually hiding in a cave about 200 miles away. God then "passes by", not in a powerful wind, nor in an earthquake, nor in a fire, but in ... a "low whisper" (ESV). Although there's no explicit explanation given, the contrast with Mt. Carmel could not be greater. God seems to be saying to Elijah that he will not overpower the listener.
How does this fit with the Calivinistic ideas of absolute depravity and original sin (two doctrines about which I know little more than can be inferred from their nomenclature)?
ReplyDeleteIs the root problem of skepticism one of will rather than of unknowability of the universe?
My impression is that Calvinism tends toward a view of the fall that is comprehensive ... the intellect, the emotions, the will, etc. This skepticism (grounded not in a naturalistic and rational perspective, but in a theological one) has to be reconciled with what is clearly knowable from general revelation by those who have not been "regenerated." The pre-suppositional school of apologetics comes from this perspective ... it holds that all knowledge presupposes the truth of God's word, especially Christ and His work as revealed there (and in the historical death and resurrection).
ReplyDeleteI think skepticism is fundamentally incoherent ... as an intellectual framework, it can not be consistently lived. Much of everyday life involves acting based on assumptions and beliefs that cannot be justified in a skeptic's framework.