SUMMARY: This third and final installment in the Patterns of Thinking series illustrates the value of thinking well by appealing to an example from Moses. How can we detect patterns of problematic thinking as previously described?
The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening. 14 When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?” 15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God; 16 when they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between one person and another, and I make them know the statutes of God and his laws.” 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. 19 Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, 20 and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.” 24 So Moses listened to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. – Exodus 18:13-24 (ESV)
Foreseeing the Torah: Moses and Delegated Authority
From the very beginning, teaching God’s law in an efficient and accessible way was of fundamental importance for the Israelites. After the Red Sea crossing Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, journeyed to the Israelite encampment in the wilderness to learn of the welfare of Moses and Israel. After a heartfelt time of catching-up, complete with worship and a celebratory feast, Moses returned to his leadership duties early the next morning. However, when Jethro observed the enormity of the burden that Moses was bearing alone, he understood that not even Moses could handle the responsibility without help.
Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone.” – Exodus 18:17-18 (ESV)
So, Jethro introduced Moses to a system of delegated authority. In the model, Moses would enlist the aid of other highly principled and competent men to share in the instruction of the people and in settling disputes. Judicial authority was divided and subdivided so that simple cases could be settled quickly, and difficult cases would ascend their way to increasingly higher levels of judicial capacity.
Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.” – Exodus 18:25 (ESV)
This early model precipitated the need for procedural and legal standardization, and necessitated the codification of an established authoritative legal corpus. Eventually, the Torah would be produced satisfying the essential requirement for judicial authority, itself calling for the establishment of judges and officers based on this early model (Deut. 16:18-20). Ultimately, though, the Torah came to serve as ancient Israel’s written constitution, in service to which the various levels of legal authorities judged.
In this way, a written code became the final standard of power and law rather than a single ruler such as a monarch or president. It was not until the American Revolution millennia later that a similar document would be developed according to which the highest court in the land would arbitrate. In many ways, the Mosaic model parallels the US constitution, though predating it by millennia.
Producing the Torah: The Character of a Culture Shaper
It all began one day when Moses listened. The result is that he created an efficient system allowing for his people to experience justice and peace in their community. It is worth noting, that even with all of his success before Pharaoh, the Red Sea miracle, and the esteem these feats garnered him, that Moses was still teachable. This man, who had unique access to God, and with whom God spoke face to face, was willing to learn from another man who had only just appeared on the scene.
Israel saw the great power that the LORD used against the Egyptians, so the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses. – Exodus 14:30 (ESV)
Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. – Exodus 33:11a (ESV)
Jethro had not seen the miracles. He had not witnessed the judgement on Egypt. He was not an eyewitness to the bold encounters between Moses and Pharaoh. Perhaps this is why he was so willing and quick to instruct the prophet. In any case, Moses had nothing to prove and did everything his father-in-law suggested (Exod. 18:24). Perhaps this willingness to listen and learn was part of what made him so unique. After all, Scripture identifies him by his extraordinary character. Moses possessed a profound humility.
According to Numbers 12, He was more humble than “all people on the face of the earth.” Moses was also wise and a noted seeker of wisdom (Psalm 90:12). Coupled with these characteristics, he was more concerned about God’s glory and reputation than his own, and sacrificially stood in the role of mediator on behalf of a difficult people (Num 14:11-19). And Jesus felt that Moses foreshadowed himself in these and other ways (Deut. 18:15, Acts 3:22; 7:35-39).
Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. – Numbers 12:3 (ESV)
Patterning the Torah: Following Moses’ Lead
Thankfully, Moses listened, gained knowledge, and applied what he had learned effectively. Over time, the Torah, and then the complete Bible, came to present a moral and theoretical virtue formative framework for the rise of modern science (Keas, see below). More simply, the Bible presents a complete worldview that is true. Its presentation accounts for the progress enabling features that have allowed for development in science, individualism, and freedom, in cultures possessing its outlook (See Rodney Stark, here).
However, progress requires thinking – quality thinking, and those who are signed up for our Thinker updates understand the importance of this reality. Unfortunately, though, many people do not. This applies to believers as well as unbelievers. One Jewish philosopher, who contemplated God for decades, stated the following:
“I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if the God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.” — Mortimer J. Adler.
The apostle Paul described his service to Christ in this way:
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…. – 2 Corinthians 10:5 (ESV)
Patterning The Torah: What to Avoid
The Torah puts a premium on the value of instruction. This is both positive and negative. Sometimes commands are given related to what shall be done, but there are also commands as to what must not be done. In the spirit of honoring God in our thinking for the benefit of others, let’s consider how to do this not only positively, but negatively. We can do this by learning to identify certain problematic patterns of thought both in ourselves and in others.
In Part 2 of our series Excavating Bias and Prejudice, we summarized these problematic types of thinking patterns as: prejudicial conjecture, unargued philosophical bias, incoherence in thought, and logical fallacy. These represent a summary of thought tools described by the Christian philosopher, Greg L. Bahnsen, in his book Always Ready. We’re hitting some highlights, but the reader would do well to examine the rest of the work, too.
Indicators of Prejudicial Conjecture
As noted in Part 2, prejudicial or personal conjecture is a kind of thinking that fails to produce reliable outcomes. It is based on personal opinion, feeling, or intuition and what “seems likely” to its proponent, instead of being a position supported by facts or evidence. There are three key indicators of this kind of approach.
Unacknowledged Assumptions
One key to exposing prejudicial conjecture is to identify key assumptions that are uncritically accepted. This could be a theory that is held as fact but is unproven. It could be feelings about the reliability of an argument or position due to its connection to a person or institution. An example could be the feeling that Professor Shovel-in-hand’s research is not reliable because he is Catholic.
In this case, dismissing the professor’s research due to his connection to a particular religious tradition, or lack thereof, rather than evaluating the research based on its own merits, is an approach to thinking that does not produce reliable outcomes. It is a form of reasoning commonly referred to as a genetic fallacy.
Conversely, assuming that Dr. Goodfaith’s conclusions are beyond challenge, because we like her, or even because the quality of her work in the past has been high, is also a problem. When differing perspectives arise, or challenges to our favorite thinker are made, we need to be willing to follow the example of Moses – listen for possible solutions to problems we may not have even detected yet.
Lack of Concrete Evidence
Another indicator of prejudicial or personal conjecture is when a position is presented as fact, or as a likely explanation, based on opinion or feeling instead of on concrete evidence. For example, an appeal to Dr. Middleman, who holds that the narrative sections of the Torah were the production of multiple authors, is not evidence that the narrative sections of the Torah were in fact produced by multiple authors.
Dr. Middleman may have a commendable record of scholarship, but this view is an appeal to authority rather than an appeal to evidence. Credible authorities may bolster an argument, but the legitimacy of the argument depends on his ability to produce the evidence when required. This is a fallacy known as appeal to authority.
Ignorance of Actual Evidence
A third indicator of prejudicial conjecture occurs when a critic or skeptic offers criticism that reflects an ignorance of actual evidence for the position that he critiques. An example could be the rejection of the Bible as a reliable source of historical information based on the claim that “it’s just a book written by men.”
The Bible may in fact be an ancient religious text physically produced by humans, but a dismissal of its claims without due consideration is problematic. It reflects ignorance of the actual evidence which is publicly available regarding the history of the Bible and its transmission.
The brilliance of its composition, uniformity of its system, reliability of its history, high standard of ethics, textual preservation, and extra-biblical corroboration establish it as unique among the world’s greatest literature. Ignorance of this uniqueness by modern day critics is an indication that something else, something deeper, is going on. (See how the creation account reveals literary genius)
Indicators of Unargued Philosophical Bias
Unargued philosophical bias shows up when the individual’s own philosophical pre-commitments determine what will be accepted as evidence, in advance. In the above case, for example, the active dismissal of the Bible and ignorance of the publicly available information about it, says more about the critic than it does the position(s) up for consideration.
When this occurs, questions should be asked about the basis of the critic’s knowledge. For example, “How do you know that the Bible is unreliable?” Or, “How do you know that Dr. Goodfaith is right, and not Dr. Middleman?” When it comes to our favorite position, or favorite expert, a failure to adequately think through why the position is right, even if it in fact is, does a disservice to the truth. It also does a disservice to those who could benefit from hearing the best explanation. It is not consistent with the Bible’s own portrayal of instruction.
One Christian thinker noted:
“Faith is not the thoughtless acceptance of something that we like to think of as true. On the contrary faith comes only in answer to fathomless agony of soul. The deepest faith is due to the deepest thought…. Faith allows no aspect of the human personality to escape subjection to God. It does not set aside the intellect but it subjects the intellect to God. It is only thus that the intellect is truly free; only thus is there an atmosphere in which it can operate. Thus too faith becomes the source of all true science.” – Cornelius Van Til
Indicators of Incoherence in Thinking
A third form of problematic thinking as noted in Part 2 is that of incoherence in thought. It shows up when a thinker holds two or more views that are inconsistent or contradictory at the same time. At one level, it could be related to one’s worldview, such with ethical or epistemological (the study of knowledge and justified belief) perspectives. It can also be related, though, to other kinds of views as well.
For example, an archaeologist might argue that a certain event could not have happened due to a lack of material evidence supporting that event. On another occasion, the same individual might argue that an “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” What is going on here? At surface level, there seems to be some inconsistency, or incoherence in thought. It could be, though, that the individual is meaning different things based on the range of definitions of his terms, or due to differences in context, audience, or subject matter. Careful listening and questioning would need to happen to make sure that the listener is not engaging in a fallacy by wrongly accusing the archaeologist of one!
The key is to look for an arbitrary use of evidence that shifts to account for outcomes consistent with a foregone conclusion, even when conflicting with other positions held. When this occurs, the individual has a desired outcome and uses evidence inconsistently to arrive at that outcome. This is an indication that something deeper is going on.
Indicators of Logical Fallacies
The last kind of unreliable thinking that our readers need to be aware of is thinking, or argumentation, characterized by logical fallacy. The above discussion provides some illustrations. For example, appeal to authority was illustrated. In the last case, the foregone conclusion fallacy looked likely. In short, though, logical fallacies are errors in thinking that undermine the validity of the argument. Logic is the study of correct/reliable and incorrect/unreliable lines of reasoning or argumentation. The key here is to look for claims not supported by the evidence used.
Conclusion
In the end, our Thinkers want to think well. That involves making sure that quality thinking begins at home. A key way to do that is to develop skill in identifying patterns of problematic thinking that may characterize our own thought lives. We also want to be able to identify these patterns in others’ thinking so that we can avoid pitfalls, and be better prepared to help those who rely on us. To accomplish that, KEEP THINKING!
REFERENCES
Keas, Michael N. The Virtuous Signs of Goodness and Truth: Moral and Theoretical Virtues in Science, Theology, and Apologetics. Lecture, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, July 2014.
Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western success. New York, N.Y.: Random House, 2006.
Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, Texarkana, Arkansas: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996.
Mortimer J. Adler, “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in Philosophers Who Believe. Ed. by Kelley James Clark (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 207.
Cornelius Van Til, “A Christian Theistic Theory of Knowledge.” The Banner 66/1809 (Nov 6, 1931): 984, 995.
Top Image: Tim Mahoney searching for patterns of evidence in Munich, Germany at the Staatliche Museum Agyptischer Kunst. (credit: Martin Severin)
NOTE: Not every view expressed by scholars contributing Thinker articles necessarily reflects the views of Patterns of Evidence. We include perspectives from various sides of debates on biblical matters so that readers can become familiar with the different arguments involved. – Keep Thinking!
