> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Matheson [mailto:matheson@helix.mgh.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 4:26 PM
> To: ASA@calvin.edu
> Subject: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind & you
> But what isn't clear to me is this: how does the scandal operate in an
> individual? How is it that an individual believer is
> rendered credulous
> and intellectually impoverished, lacking self-critical instincts and
> unaware of compromises in his/her own intellectual integrity?
I have Mark's book on my shelf, but I haven't had the time to read it. But I
have heard enough about it being discussed to have a general idea of his
thesis. My suspicion is that the so-called "intellectual impoverishment" and
"lack of self-criticism" is not unique to evangelicals, but to society as a
whole. I would even go so far as to argue that this typical of the human
species as a whole. We humans are not prone to self-criticisms. We have
several built-in cognitive biases that normally serve us well in general,
but sometimes get us into trouble.
> It seems to significantly predate the obvious decline of American
> educational quality, so that's not a good theory. My current working
> hypothesis is that the loss of self-critical restraint made
> possible the
> assimilation of some self-sustaining axioms into the
> dominating worldviews
> (read theologies), and that these axioms are self-sustaining
> at least in
> part because they inactivate self-criticism, perhaps by
> replacing it with
> something else. The whole thing works as a feedback loop that is
> self-sustaining and extremely well insulated.
What you call self-sustaining axioms are what cognitive and social
psychologists refer to as cognitive biases. There are not assimilated into
worldviews, but precede them, and probably shape the worldviews as well.
They are necessary for us to function in a complex world, and do serve us
well much of the time. One example is the confirmation bias that describes
our tendency to notice information that is consistent with our existing
belief system, and to ignore disconfirming information. We have to work very
hard to overcome this and to be self-critical takes hard work and training,
and even with that, we are still not terribly good at it. I believe that is
why the processes of peer-review and replications etc. were necessarily
developed.
Oops!OUt of time for now. Will chat later!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 19 2000 - 19:52:39 EDT