David Sloan, in his book, Theological Correctness: Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn’t, says “Cognitive science provides the best method we have for understanding religious behavior. Religion is the way it is because the mind is the way it is. Theology does not determine people’s thoughts and actions.†This statement and the thesis of Sloan’s book challenges the Christian belief that our theology and life of faith informs all aspects of Christian behavior (pp. 51-54).
Sloan defines Attribution Theory as the “propensity to make sense of the world, to understand the causes of events†(p. 52) and suggests that a religious worldview provides “one mental model among others that humans might employ to explain the events or behaviors in the world.†(p.53) He cites a recent study by Lupfer and colleagues (Lupfer et al. 1996) which revealed that devoutly religious people do not employ religious explanations for most events and everyday behaviors.
Drawing from other research, Sloan writes, “…researchers found that humans are more likely to employ supernatural attributions as causes of events for the following reasons: if one is personally affected by an event; if the event is significantly important; if the event has a positive (rather than negative) impact; and/or if the event is of a health or finance-related concern. He says humans tend to employ religious concepts when naturalistic explanations don’t suffice.
Sloan observes that just because a person has a religious worldview, does not mean that person will employ that conceptual scheme to every experience. If his thesis is true, this may explain why religion does not appear to permeate every aspect of behavior and why there doesn’t seem to be a significant difference between Christians and non-Christians in terms of daily behavior. According to this thesis, most of life’s experiences do not require a theological framework (my words) for meaning, and therefore, religious convictions are invoked only in certain circumstances of need. This thesis raises many questions concerning Christian formation and transformation. If formation and transformation does not differentiate a Christian from non-Christians then what does it mean to be formed in and transformed into the likeness of Christ?
Questions for reflection and discussion:
- Do you agree with Sloan’s thesis? Why or why not?
- To what extent can a religious system be transformational if it is only one worldview of many by which persons think, act, and make meaning?
- Can we really say that a religious course of study is truly transformational, if it is true that cognitive science has greater influence on people’s thoughts and actions than theology does?
- How does the church introduce the philosophy of cognitive science (the study of thought, learning, and mental organization, which draws on aspects of psychology, linguistics, philosophy, and computer modeling) as a determinant of behavior without bringing harm to people who believe religion to be the one worldview that informs every thought and action of life?
One other phenomemon related to religious faith and “beliefs” and “religious thinking” is one’s sense of “locus of control.” When people feel that they are in control of their own lives (circumstances, destiny, and fortunes) religion takes a back seat to the magical and wishful thinking that occurs when people’s lives seem out of their control. In other words, God is not seen as “active” in their lives aside from a vague notion of generalized “blessing” or through Providence.
We can see this phenomenon at several levels. Two examples are, (1) if you are out shopping and return to your car to find that your battery has died and you can’t start your car. All of a sudden your prayer life becomes active and earnest. (2) At a whole different level we see whole churches who use or perpetuate the external locus of control in their members (see Joel Olstein’s et al.).
In terms of Religious Education, the social sciences have always been as much of an informing framework for understanding and “teaching” faith as doctrinal beliefs. And with the continuing cognitive research related to the brain’s functioning I’m certain that the cognitive sciences will continue to be more influential in our understanding of religion and faith as well as pedagogy.
Marty,
I would like to try to engage you in question 4. I would say that we (educators) need to strive live a transformed life where our biblical worldview penetrates all aspects of our lives. We can model this in the classrooms we occupy, at the lunch table when we are sitting across from others on their journeys, in the conference rooms when participating in meetings, etc.
If I understand Sloan correctly, I fear he may be all too accurate. “Christians” do not embrace the grace and faith that they say they have when times get difficult or even during times of celebration. One reason for this is because we (Christian subculture) have labled Christian education is the distribution of information. This is purely a cognitive act.
If, however, this is the way Jesus intended it to be my question would be why did He come down here? He could have avoided the pain of the cross and left it up to the Old Testament prophets. Instead, He chose to come down here, live a transformed life among us, and invite others to join Him. If we (educators) could model this, maybe we could disprove Sloan’s theory.
Good observations, Tom. I think cognitive science is operational in everyone’s life. I believe it was operative in Jesus as well, although the understanding and language of the day did not recognize the implications of cognitive science. The main difference between our lives and the life of Jesus was the extent to which Jesus was connected to and in relationship to God.
In order for one’s faith to be mature, four domains need to be operational—cognitive, affective, behavioral, and volition (realm of the Spirit). You are right that the prevalent, misguided notion that Christian education only addresses the cognitive domain, is a limited view of Christian education. To the extent that these four domains are operational in a person’s life is the extent to which faith is mature. I would argue that Jesus employed all four. But, in addition to this, I think a very important component is the relational issue of faith. I believe the extent to which we are in relationship with God is the extent to which life in Christlikeness is transformational. Perhaps this is the real clue to transformation.
So yes, our faith should influence all aspects of our lives, but I suspect evidence is clear that only to the degree that our connection to God overrides our human cognitive tendency to employ other mental models, are we able to live lives that are truly transformed by God’s grace. For me, it’s all about our relationship with God. Good insight, Tom.
What do others of you think?
Pingback: Effectual Faith domains are subtle | G.R.A.C.E. Writes