Articles
Misusing Our Mind
Consider the following observation by actress Nicole Kidman: “Choosing to unknow things is a fascinating part of human nature – when and what you choose to believe” (AARP, Oct/Nov 2020, p 15). She was summarizing a movie she had made; no other context was given. But her words mirror the well-entrenched mantra of our age: truth is only what you think it is. Our society has wandered from objective truth and reality down a steep, slippery, shadowy path of our own preferred narrative regardless of facts to the contrary.
In last week’s article I stated that life has a lot of gray areas. That is true when considering issues not defined by clear, incontrovertible evidence, such as opinions and preferences. But what happens when the human mind is confronted by facts? When our worldview, assumptions and/or opinions are challenged by contrary evidence, how do we handle it? Ms. Kidman seems to be saying that we have the power of choice over what we believe regardless of the facts. This is a very disturbing proposition because it undermines the core function of the human mind: to examine our world and come to rational conclusions about reality (material things, words/ideas, human behavior, the existence of God, etc.). Yet a growing percentage of our culture embraces the illogic of believing what they choose simply because they want to believe it.
First, this strikes me as intellectual laziness. It takes effort – gathering and analyzing information, comparison with previous knowledge, cross-checking with other sources, etc. – to reach sensible conclusions. But given our short attention spans, brain clutter, general insecurity and distaste for anxiety, it is easy to bypass the hard work and simply say, “I can believe whatever I want to.”
Secondly, this strikes me as intellectual suicide. The fallacy is obvious in certain contexts:
1) How do engineers build a jetliner or a skyscraper or a computer if various manufacturers use different standards of measurement? Is a millimeter whatever you want it to be?
2) How do doctors effectively treat male and female patients if differing physiology is ignored?
3) How do we conduct jury trials – the bedrock of our jurisprudence system – if the accused assaulted the victim merely on the basis of his/her truth? And what if the jurors are so subjective and averse to “judging” others that they cannot conclude a law has been broken which carries grave consequences? In fact, the prosecutor in the recent jury I served on asked this very question: Could we apply the law whether we agreed with it or not? And did we have any moral, religious or philosophic convictions that would preclude us from a finding of guilt and applying the punishment stipulated by law?
Thirdly, this strikes me as spiritual suicide. God has made His crowning creation, mankind, with the mental capacity to grasp His nature (at least insofar as He has revealed it), understand His words – commands, promises, human nature, worship, future fate, etc. – and exercise free will accordingly. When we dumb down our reasoning ability, cut ourselves off from the gospel which is rationally communicated to us.
Thus Jesus upbraids His hearers who had become dull of thought:
“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry …?” – Mt 12:3.
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’ … ?” – Mt 19:4.
“Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God …?” – Mt 22:31.
“Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” – Jn 3:10.
In these cases, Jesus makes reference to the prior revelation of God in the OT (both Mosaic and pre-Mosaic), and He holds His hearers accountable for not drawing proper conclusions about Him and His teaching from the material that was available to them. In other references both Jesus and the inspired NT writers quote copiously from the prophets to bolster their conclusions about Jesus, His atoning death and all its implications. “Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ’” (Ac 17:2-3).
A growing number of today’s self-identified Christians are comingling the subjective messaging of the culture with objective truths of the new covenant. It is difficult to reason persuasively with someone who responds, “I just don’t feel that is what Scripture is saying” or “That’s just your interpretation.” If you try to press a point, the other person will likely get angry or shut down and refuse to hear evidence contrary to their position. We are a society that wants what it wants, and many are determined that Scripture is not going to get in the way.
Ms. Kidman’s view of the human mind is not “fascinating”; it is bizarre and illogical. It may sound liberating to the naive, but it isn’t the way the world actually works. Our free will doesn’t include irrationally believing whatever we wish. You can put one bullet in a six-shooter, spin the cylinder, and fervently believe that the odds are in your favor. But if the bullet is in the chamber when you pull the trigger, it doesn’t matter what you feel about the outcome. Facts can be immutable and deadly.
Addendum:
“Now there is a battle between traditional reason and the postmodern denial that truth is objective. To the postmodernist, truth cannot be proved in any objective way because we are essentially trapped in our language prisons, able only to express subjective feelings. Science, history, reason, and evidence cannot tell us anything except what those who report about it believe. Feeling and intuition tell us more than reason or evidence, so we need to go with what we feel. Since there is no absolute truth, then everything, including our morality, is relative and person-dependent. There are no objective standards by which to judge anyone or anything; all ethical views should be tolerated (and this is, ironically, seen as absolute) … This shift in thinking has affected all levels of society: education (including history and literature), religion, politics, science, medicine, law … name it. The shift has resulted in what some have simply called ‘the death of truth’” (Doy Moyer, Mind Your Faith 170).
