I've mentioned several times in various posts that there's an obstacle having to do with overcoming a person's paradigm when attempting to have a substantive and productive conversation or respectful debate. I realized that I hadn't really spent a lot of time putting my thoughts into words and so I thought I'd start a thread on the topic and see if anyone has some interesting thoughts on the issue.
First of all we should start by defining what a paradigm is. A paradigm is a set of assumptions that we use, mostly unconsciously, to filter information of a given topic. They are quite useful, indispensable really. Without them we'd be forced to think through every idea every time it came up. This would of course make communication very cumbersome if not impossible. But how do you know that your paradigm is right? It's a rather difficult question to answer because your paradigm will tend to filter out any answer to that question that conflicts with the paradigm itself and you won't know its happened. This phenomenon is referred to as the Paradigm Effect.
Another phrase used to describe this psychological phenomenon is "Paradigm Paralysis". This is generally used to describe a situation in which important decisions are made (or more often not made) in ignorance even though the needed information is right under the decision maker's nose but is made invisible by their paradigm. "We've never done it that way before and its worked just fine!" is the mantra of the man suffering from paradigm paralysis.
I am convinced that the primary reason why very little progress is ever made toward convincing people of anything, not just here at TOL but anywhere, is because of the paradigm effect. Discussions very seldom reach to the level of paradigm analysis because almost no one is willing to question their paradigm. And when someone's paradigm is challenged the response is almost always to ignore the challenge and to deflect to another topic. This is especially true when its a religious or theological paradigm that is being challenged. Most people are simply not willing to touch their theological paradigm at all. It costs way too much.
People have invested their lives into the construction of their theological paradigm. A person inherits their theological paradigm from whoever raises them initially, even if that paradigm is an atheistic one, but typically, by the age of twenty a person has either made that paradigm their own or they've rejected it in favor of another. In either case, they've set out on a particular road that takes little effort to stay on but a very great deal of effort to get off of. Much more effort than most are even capable of, never mind willing to exert. It never even occurs to most people to ask whether or not the road they're on is the right one and most of the people who do think to ask such a question have no idea how to answer it. Those who do ask and manage to get an answer typically only accept the answer they happen to get reaffirms their theological paradigm. It is the rarest of men who both discover that their lives are on the wrong path and who are willing to discard the faith of their youth and to embark down unfamiliar theological paths in search for the objective truth.
In this thread, I'd like to explore different paradigm level ideas. You might find it rather difficult to discern which ideas are at paradigm level and which are not, I know I do! But that's sort of the point of this thread. To try to tease out the foundational ideas from the theological noise. I'll kick that process off by offering three good examples of what I think are clearly a paradigm level theological concepts.
1. Does God exist?
Obviously paradigm level stuff.
2. The attributes of God: Quality vs. Quantity
This concept of God's qualitative attributes vs. His quantitative attributes where clearly presented and brilliantly argued by Bob Enyart in a Battle Royale X. Calvinists try to suggest that they give no preference to any of God's attributes over any others but they do and so does everyone else. It turns out that you are forced to and the fact that you are forced to choose is what makes this a paradigm level concept because a decision here effects almost everything that comes after.
3. Why was Paul made an apostle?
This is a question very few Christians ever think to ask but that all Christians answer whether directly or implicitly and the answer to the question has gigantic influence over the whole rest of your Christian philosophy. In fact, nearly every theological debate you can name hinges on the answer to this question. Everything from whether water baptism is need for salvation to whether one can loose their salvation or what foods you are allowed eat all hinge on how you answer the question, “Why Paul?”. I therefore consider it to be a paradigm level concept.
Okay, so there's three idea ideas, what are some more? Also, if you have any ideas about how to objectively analyze one's theological paradigm, I'd be very interested in reading that as well.
By the way, let's try our best not to debate the ideas here just let's try to figure out which ideas are at the paradigm level and which are not.
Resting in Him,
Clete
First of all we should start by defining what a paradigm is. A paradigm is a set of assumptions that we use, mostly unconsciously, to filter information of a given topic. They are quite useful, indispensable really. Without them we'd be forced to think through every idea every time it came up. This would of course make communication very cumbersome if not impossible. But how do you know that your paradigm is right? It's a rather difficult question to answer because your paradigm will tend to filter out any answer to that question that conflicts with the paradigm itself and you won't know its happened. This phenomenon is referred to as the Paradigm Effect.
The phrase "Paradigm Effect" was coined by Joel Barker; the actual theory was found by Thomas Khun.
This Theory states that what goes against one's paradigm (their world view, what they know to be true) will be nearly impossible for them to see. For example if someone was to quickly flip through a pack of cards that contained a black 5 of hearts, you would probably see it as a 5 of spades or clubs because your paradigm is that black cards are clubs and spades and red cards are hearts and diamonds. Someone who has never seen a deck of cards would see the black 5 of hearts for what it truly was because they had no expectations, or previous paradigms. - source
This Theory states that what goes against one's paradigm (their world view, what they know to be true) will be nearly impossible for them to see. For example if someone was to quickly flip through a pack of cards that contained a black 5 of hearts, you would probably see it as a 5 of spades or clubs because your paradigm is that black cards are clubs and spades and red cards are hearts and diamonds. Someone who has never seen a deck of cards would see the black 5 of hearts for what it truly was because they had no expectations, or previous paradigms. - source
Another phrase used to describe this psychological phenomenon is "Paradigm Paralysis". This is generally used to describe a situation in which important decisions are made (or more often not made) in ignorance even though the needed information is right under the decision maker's nose but is made invisible by their paradigm. "We've never done it that way before and its worked just fine!" is the mantra of the man suffering from paradigm paralysis.
I am convinced that the primary reason why very little progress is ever made toward convincing people of anything, not just here at TOL but anywhere, is because of the paradigm effect. Discussions very seldom reach to the level of paradigm analysis because almost no one is willing to question their paradigm. And when someone's paradigm is challenged the response is almost always to ignore the challenge and to deflect to another topic. This is especially true when its a religious or theological paradigm that is being challenged. Most people are simply not willing to touch their theological paradigm at all. It costs way too much.
People have invested their lives into the construction of their theological paradigm. A person inherits their theological paradigm from whoever raises them initially, even if that paradigm is an atheistic one, but typically, by the age of twenty a person has either made that paradigm their own or they've rejected it in favor of another. In either case, they've set out on a particular road that takes little effort to stay on but a very great deal of effort to get off of. Much more effort than most are even capable of, never mind willing to exert. It never even occurs to most people to ask whether or not the road they're on is the right one and most of the people who do think to ask such a question have no idea how to answer it. Those who do ask and manage to get an answer typically only accept the answer they happen to get reaffirms their theological paradigm. It is the rarest of men who both discover that their lives are on the wrong path and who are willing to discard the faith of their youth and to embark down unfamiliar theological paths in search for the objective truth.
In this thread, I'd like to explore different paradigm level ideas. You might find it rather difficult to discern which ideas are at paradigm level and which are not, I know I do! But that's sort of the point of this thread. To try to tease out the foundational ideas from the theological noise. I'll kick that process off by offering three good examples of what I think are clearly a paradigm level theological concepts.
1. Does God exist?
Obviously paradigm level stuff.
2. The attributes of God: Quality vs. Quantity
This concept of God's qualitative attributes vs. His quantitative attributes where clearly presented and brilliantly argued by Bob Enyart in a Battle Royale X. Calvinists try to suggest that they give no preference to any of God's attributes over any others but they do and so does everyone else. It turns out that you are forced to and the fact that you are forced to choose is what makes this a paradigm level concept because a decision here effects almost everything that comes after.
3. Why was Paul made an apostle?
This is a question very few Christians ever think to ask but that all Christians answer whether directly or implicitly and the answer to the question has gigantic influence over the whole rest of your Christian philosophy. In fact, nearly every theological debate you can name hinges on the answer to this question. Everything from whether water baptism is need for salvation to whether one can loose their salvation or what foods you are allowed eat all hinge on how you answer the question, “Why Paul?”. I therefore consider it to be a paradigm level concept.
Okay, so there's three idea ideas, what are some more? Also, if you have any ideas about how to objectively analyze one's theological paradigm, I'd be very interested in reading that as well.
By the way, let's try our best not to debate the ideas here just let's try to figure out which ideas are at the paradigm level and which are not.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
