The Science of the Devil's Advocate

Last week I wrote about the Devil's Advocate in our Science for the Church newsletter. Because I love the Devil's Advocate. Let me be clear: I don't love the Devil; I love the Devil's Advocate.

But first, I'm going to start with groupthink.

Many of us would like to believe about ourselves that we are "independent thinkers." Psychological science responds, "Not so fast." To use Jonathan Haidt’s word, we are innately "groupish." 

“We take on group identities and work shoulder to shoulder with strangers toward common goals so enthusiastically that it seems as if our minds were designed for teamwork.” Jonathan Haidt

We love being in groups or teams, and we tend to think like—not in contrast to—others in our group. 

Obviously, there are upsides, but the downside is that teamwork often leads to groupthink. And that brings me to the next topic: one of the glories of science is to combat this natural human tendency by setting up rigorous methods to root it out. 

Put simply, scientists know we need colleagues from within the fold to question our assertions.

And, believe it or not, that brings me the office of the Devil's Advocate and why I see connections with the methods of science. Both address the problem of groupthink. Incidentally, the reason I just used the term "office" is that the Devil's Advocate is an official position in the Roman Catholic Church. It was created in 1587 by Pope Sixtus V as one of critical offices of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, who oversee the processes of beatification and canonization. 

Anyone you or I put toward a sainthood will have to make it through the Devil's Advocates' counter-arguments (whose official title, by the way, is Promoter of the Faith). The duty of the Devil's Advocate it is to prepare in writing all possible arguments against the raising of anyone to “the honors of the altar.”

In a world marred by polarization, in which we just talk with those in our group and avoid--whether intentionally or not--we need true conversation where "iron sharpens iron" (Proverbs 27:17). The concept of the Devil's Advocate, even after more than 400 years, is still fresh and remarkably compelling.

Emotions: Helpful or Not? And Does Science Have Anything to Say about it? (Another Soul Dialogue)

Nick, my imaginary friend: Greg, did you say the topic today would be Scripture and positive psychology?

GSC: That I did! And we will get to it. But not today. Because first, I think we need to take on a common misconception about life and happiness.

Nick: Ok, what are you thinking?

GSC: It’s something I heard the other day in a sermon—“Christian faith isn’t all in your head.” On the one hand, Amen to that! On other hand, faith isn’t all in your feelings either!

Nick: Not to be too philosophical--or scientific--but no, duh.

GSC: You’d be surprised by how many people fall for the feelings trap. Can I show you an amazing drawing? It shows how facts must lead the train of our lives, which is followed by our faith in those facts, and then by our feelings. 

Nick: Hey, that’s not your picture! You stole it from Cru! And the train’s sleeker than in the ‘80s. It’s been updated from your college years.

GSC: You’re right on several fronts, and I admit that the language and image is a bit silly. But still the point is clear—don’t follow your feelings because they change. Put your faith in what you know to be true and the feelings will follow.

Nick: Ok, let me take on the role of an antagonist… What have you got against emotion? Don’t you realize that everything you care about is based on emotion? And what does science have to say?

GSC: Good question! I love emotion, and like Jonathan Edwards’s famous 18^thcentury defense of “religious affections,” emotions or “affections” are central to most believers’ understanding of Christian faith and most people’s experience of life. 

Nick: Is there a difference for Edwards between emotions and affections?

GSC: Yes. “Affections” for Edwards represented something a bit more substantial than ephemeral emotions. Still the point stands—it’s not all cold rationality. 

Nick: I think that’s right. As you often hear in Plato's dialogues, “Socrates, you are the wisest man alive.”

GSC: Thanks. Hard to know what to say…

Nick: Here’s something. Aren’t these affections or emotions a gift to give us motivation?

GSC: God definitely gives us emotions or feelings. At the same time, it’s not feelings that define us. It’s actually walking in God’s way. As C. S. Lewis wrote in a letter to one of his many correspondents in 1950, 

“Obedience is the key to all doors: feelings come (or don’t come) and go as God pleases. We can’t produce them at will and mustn’t try.” C. S. Lewis

Nick: We haven't talked much about science, and I'm always interested in what scientists can contribute. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has found that, without emotions, we can’t make moral decisions.

GSC: There you go, always putting theology and science into the conversation!

Nick: Ok, I’ll do one more, Jonathan Haidt notes that often we, with our rational deliberation, are simply the rider on the back of the elephant of emotions. 

GSC: Tru dat! But the point is that, through taming our emotions, learning how to engage our rationality, and living in a good community, we learn to direct the elephant. 

Nick: So do you agree with Haidt or not?

GSC:  I think Haidt is good, but he overstates his case. In brief I'd say that we all default to Haidt, but shouldn't end there. And that I'm convinced the American church is too often led around by the vagaries of our emotions. It's not good...

Nick: Fair enough. So both emotions and reason need to work together, but it’s how we actually live that defines our happiness?

GSC: Ah yes, young padawan, you summarize well! I think you’ve learned much for today. Let’s keep walking. Next time, maybe we’ll pick up the topics of positive psychology and Scripture…