Hi Richard
Wondering if you’ve read **THE RIGHTEOUS MIND **by Jonathan Haidt
If so, what do you think of it and more specifically, do you see any implications in his theory for Universalism??
Bobx3
I have read it. The three metaphors he uses are 1) the rider serves the elephant, 2) there are six moral taste receptors, and 3) we are 90% chimp and 10% bee. Those who have read the book will know what these refer to.
Looking these over I don’t see huge implications for UR, though others here might want to point some out. The main implication I see is from the first part of the book about the rider and the elephant, the idea that a lot of our decision making is unconscious and unreflective.
The implication, as I see it, goes to the issue of free will and how it works in Arminian soteriological systems. Specifically, if accepting God’s gift of salvation involves an act of volition (e.g., accepting Jesus into your heart as Lord and Savior) then we have to wrestle with Haidt’s elephant. “Choosing God” is actually done by the elephant. The overt act of confession is the post hoc activity of the rider.
Trouble is, the elephant is hard to change. The implication, as I see it, is that change (conversion in this case) is sluggish and slow and hard. Arguing, say, with an atheist or a Muslim isn’t going to accomplish much. The riders making the arguments are simply offering post hoc justifications for the underlying commitments of the elephants.
All this to say that if conversion is deep, at the level of the elephant, then evangelism will not be a simple presentation of the gospel. It will have to involve something much slower and of longer duration. Perhaps a lifetime. In light of that I think UR is well positioned to offer a vision of salvation that converts elephants rather than riders.
Thanks Richard; appreciated…
For me it was very sobering - and humbling - to realize I am less under the control of my reason and more controlled by my intuition than I had imagined I was. And you are quite right I think that this has profound implications for our witness and should have profound implications for our expectations as we seek to share what we’ve come to see as the Good News.
A bit depressing and discouraging too I guess to realize the extent to which I’ve magnified the rider (reason) at the expense of the elephant (intuition). Also very interesting how well his insights line up with the studies/experiments of neuroscience that question the nature of our “freedom”. Just as our minds have already decided on an action long before we are aware of the decision, so too our reason comes rather late to formulate explanations for what we’ve already decided…
As for the implications for UR, I was a bit surprised to read in an interview with Haidt
thoughtcatalog.com/2012/exposing-the-righteous-mind-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt/
that he considers “his most exciting contribution to be the third principle, that morality binds and blinds, the metaphor here is that human beings are 90% chimp and 10% bee.” Current dogma (think Dawkins, Harris, etc) has it that it is our selfish genes which have caused our morals to develop (evolve) but Haidt says it’s much more than that; it’s a loyalty and deference and respect to an entire group. Bigger than self, than kin, than family; it’s the entire community! Well, it’s not hard at all to see that if one’s “community” is large enough, it will encompass the entire human race! And that of course is where Universalism reigns. And for a Christian, who views God as creator of all, all being made in His image, it should be rather elementary to build a case that we should care/love/treat as brothers everyone.
Well of course it’s a lot more complicated than that and Haidt himself is an atheist and sees religion to be generally more harmful to our proper moral evolution than helpful… Nonetheless, I thought I heard faint rumblings in his writing of implications of Universalism and so wondered if you might hear them as well…
Thanks again Richard…
Bobx3