When someone challenges me to change the way I think or act, they can expect to meet a well-organized resistance. They will have to punch through a layer of conceit that doesn’t want to admit that I may have just possibly been slightly, but very understandably, mistaken in this one instance.
Dear Tony, having watched your last interview with Dominic Steele regarding the Alpha course, i understand you are perhaps making a change to your Two Ways to Live tract in some way. In keeping with the sentiment of your Yeah-But" article, may i invite you to comment to me on a review i wrote near ten years ago on the 2W2L tract. The article can be read here.
Hi Tony, you had me at cognitive biases that hinder my ability to think well theologically. Also, I like how its hard to come back at this without a yes, but. 🙂 Anyway, it seems to me that yes buts are only bad if I am wrong. So, to flip your penal substitution illustration around, if I hear someone making, say, Jesus' mere sympathy the key point of the cross I want to say yes, but... I guess I'm wondering just how we decide to use or not use yes, buts given our cognitive biases?? Thanks, Richard
Hi Richard. I think the particular feature of the Yeah-But (as I am calling it) is not just cognitive bias, but a cognitive bias that seeks to evade and not deal honestly with a massive amount of contrary evidence. So (as I am using the label, and it's just me!) I'm not talking about every time we acknowledge that someone has a good point to make, but that there are other things to say as well (which legitimately happens all the time) — I'm talking about our propensity to casually sidle around really large arguments (or evidence) that inconveniently contradict or challenge us.
So to the person who wants to make Jesus' sympathy or even Jesus' example the key meaning of the cross, the issue to discuss is whether or not that is the dominant or central idea that the apostolic writers employed.
Which raises another question that I'm planning to write on sometime soon — Does sitting under the authority of the apostolic writings also mean sitting under their emphasis?
Yep, I get that. I guess my point is that often - I suspect far too often - I feel that the preponderance of evidence IS in my favour even in controversial issues. And I see that in the arguments of others too. My hunch is that my biases are not simply in resisting contradictory evidence, but also in a priori biasing even the evidential criteria. In other words, yeah but goes down a few layers. My sin deeply wants to preference me. Again, thanks for raising the issue.
Now, I want to know more about that hobbyhorse. Please write more about the topic of the church, gathering, and worship....
Dear Tony, having watched your last interview with Dominic Steele regarding the Alpha course, i understand you are perhaps making a change to your Two Ways to Live tract in some way. In keeping with the sentiment of your Yeah-But" article, may i invite you to comment to me on a review i wrote near ten years ago on the 2W2L tract. The article can be read here.
https://www.shoalhavengospelchurch.org.au/?p=1501
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely Norm Day.
Thanks Norm. I'll take a look!
Thank you Tony. I will be greatful for your reply, and fascinated to see what you do with 2W2L.
As my biblical counseling mentor often points out to counselees, “you’re buts keep getting in your way”.
Hi Tony, you had me at cognitive biases that hinder my ability to think well theologically. Also, I like how its hard to come back at this without a yes, but. 🙂 Anyway, it seems to me that yes buts are only bad if I am wrong. So, to flip your penal substitution illustration around, if I hear someone making, say, Jesus' mere sympathy the key point of the cross I want to say yes, but... I guess I'm wondering just how we decide to use or not use yes, buts given our cognitive biases?? Thanks, Richard
Hi Richard. I think the particular feature of the Yeah-But (as I am calling it) is not just cognitive bias, but a cognitive bias that seeks to evade and not deal honestly with a massive amount of contrary evidence. So (as I am using the label, and it's just me!) I'm not talking about every time we acknowledge that someone has a good point to make, but that there are other things to say as well (which legitimately happens all the time) — I'm talking about our propensity to casually sidle around really large arguments (or evidence) that inconveniently contradict or challenge us.
So to the person who wants to make Jesus' sympathy or even Jesus' example the key meaning of the cross, the issue to discuss is whether or not that is the dominant or central idea that the apostolic writers employed.
Which raises another question that I'm planning to write on sometime soon — Does sitting under the authority of the apostolic writings also mean sitting under their emphasis?
Thanks for commenting!
TP
Hey Tony,
Yep, I get that. I guess my point is that often - I suspect far too often - I feel that the preponderance of evidence IS in my favour even in controversial issues. And I see that in the arguments of others too. My hunch is that my biases are not simply in resisting contradictory evidence, but also in a priori biasing even the evidential criteria. In other words, yeah but goes down a few layers. My sin deeply wants to preference me. Again, thanks for raising the issue.
R