A year or so ago Ali and I enjoyed a weekend get-away in Co. Wexford. We stayed at a hotel which had been recommended to us. The dinner menus at this hotel were curious and not my cup of tea. Like "served on a bed of..." and when the plate came the only food of substance seemed to be that of the "bed" but on closer inspection and taste I can only surmise it was not intended to be eaten. One of the "puddings", and one I chose in distress nothing else appearing palatable, was "pavlova deconstructed". When the desert came it contained one or two very small blobs of meringue, a few berries, perhaps half a strawberry and a small splodge of cream. And the usual ridiculous "jus" patterns on the considerable void of the rest of the otherwise empty plate. I was not impressed. Why should one pay more for eating less?
I used this story in the "opening" aka "devotion" I gave earlier this week adding that, at present, I feel like what I thought was my "faith" is under deconstruction. I went on to expose false ideas of what it means to "believe". As an example I explained how I had recently set a ladder on the tin roof and against our boiler's chimney which is no more than a steel pipe. I wanted to clean the flue. I had evidence gained from experience that the set-up would take my weight, but I could not be sure until I committed myself to climbing it. The bridge between the necessary evidence and the outworking I identified as "belief" or "faith". The evidence and the outworking were two essential ingredients but they did not meet in the middle.
I explained that, quite apart from anything Christian, the human psyche could be strongly affected by what we believe, citing medical examples of remarkable restorations to health just because the patient believed a treatment, even a placebo, would do the trick.
I thought I made it clear that much of what I, and doubtless we, call "belief" in Christianity is wishful thinking or confirmation bias. I was nervous saying this because I thought I might be ousted!
The curious thing is that, although several folk thanked me for sharing, no-one made any reference to my apostasy. Which was all very curious.
And then to cap it all, after the evening meal desert was do-it-yourself-deconstructed-pavlova. Only this time the quantities were right!
Showing posts with label confirmation bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label confirmation bias. Show all posts
20190619
20190421
The trouble with dogma
One of the problems with being dogmatic is if you are wrong. Apart from being like a dog and his bone, the dogmatist refuses to acknowledge and blinkers his eyes to any alternative view. This tendency of humans to think they are right is known as confirmation bias.
Good science eschews confirmation bias and yet how often, when processing a data set in the course of my work or teaching, have I been tempted to exclude a datum because it disagreed with my preconceptions.
My father was dogmatic in his views on eschatology - I cannot even recall what his views were, but he got angry when I suggested things might be different to what he believed. There were a couple of very dogmatic Calvinists I knew in college days and it was futile to disagree with them. I have even been known to be dogmatic myself!
A good deal of dogmatism is expressed in the young earth / intelligent design / Darwinian evolution debate. Whichever side you tend towards you probably hate the arrogance shown by some of the proponents.
Would you be prepared to die for your faith? Personally I think 'faith' is the wrong object - rather, that you should die for your friends? Stories that have this theme are the gut wrenching / tear jerking ones. One step further - the One who died for the sake of his enemies. Would you call him dogmatic? For he insisted that he was the son of God. And there's the rub, like I said in my recent post I have been taught to "hear God and obey" - but to an onlooker who disagrees with my stance I could well come across as being dogmatic.
The link I started this post with suggests that open mindedness is the antidote to dogmatism and I am inclined to agree, except that if you open your mind too wide you invite all manner of nonsense in. That's where discernment comes in handy. But discernment is a dynamically adjusted filter and has to be developed and thus can be mislead. And so people end up believing weird things.
Good science eschews confirmation bias and yet how often, when processing a data set in the course of my work or teaching, have I been tempted to exclude a datum because it disagreed with my preconceptions.
My father was dogmatic in his views on eschatology - I cannot even recall what his views were, but he got angry when I suggested things might be different to what he believed. There were a couple of very dogmatic Calvinists I knew in college days and it was futile to disagree with them. I have even been known to be dogmatic myself!
A good deal of dogmatism is expressed in the young earth / intelligent design / Darwinian evolution debate. Whichever side you tend towards you probably hate the arrogance shown by some of the proponents.
Would you be prepared to die for your faith? Personally I think 'faith' is the wrong object - rather, that you should die for your friends? Stories that have this theme are the gut wrenching / tear jerking ones. One step further - the One who died for the sake of his enemies. Would you call him dogmatic? For he insisted that he was the son of God. And there's the rub, like I said in my recent post I have been taught to "hear God and obey" - but to an onlooker who disagrees with my stance I could well come across as being dogmatic.
The link I started this post with suggests that open mindedness is the antidote to dogmatism and I am inclined to agree, except that if you open your mind too wide you invite all manner of nonsense in. That's where discernment comes in handy. But discernment is a dynamically adjusted filter and has to be developed and thus can be mislead. And so people end up believing weird things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
