Models that Work

In building up their worldviews, people and communities of people assemble an interacting set of “models” which they use to make predictions so that they can make better decisions that will lead to the best actions they can take. Before going further, I need to define the concept of “models” that I am using here. To me, a “model” is any means that an individual or group uses to make predictions about the possible outcomes related to decisions or to the actions that result from decisions made. These “models” may be such things as sayings, stories, narratives, rules of thumb, parables, proverbs, fables, laws, norms, schema, or anything more formal, including either logical or mathematical structures. For example, “love your neighbor as yourself” can be considered to be a “model”; the fable about the tortoise and the hare leading to the conclusion that slow and steady wins the race can be considered to be a “model”; and the parables of Jesus can be considered to be a “model”.

“Models” are fallible; they never predict with 100% accuracy. For example, there is the problem of applying the appropriate “model” to a specific situation. The advice “slow and steady wins the race” is not appropriate for someone running a 100-yard dash. Here, “the race goes to the swiftest” is a better “model”. Furthermore, “models” can be thought of as probabilistic. That is, “models” supply a range of possible outcomes for any proposed action…not just one outcome. “Models” that provide only one outcome are called deterministic models and tend to be circular in reasoning.

Everyone needs “models”! People and communities of people cannot function without them. Many argue that humans are hardwired to develop “models” because human beings are problem solvers and this is the unique characteristic of the species that has led to its higher development. People just naturally construct models to help them solve more difficult problems and make better decisions. The test of whether or not a “model” is relatively adequate is whether or not it can do better than other models in solving more difficult problems or help individuals and groups make better decisions.

People and communities are pragmatist in terms of the “models” they use. The ‘kicker’ in this approach is that the “models” used must be reflective of the worldviews of these individuals or groups. People construct these “models” using assumptions that are consistent with how they view the way the world works. But, not all assumptions are equal. Some assumptions are more important than others. Willard Van Orman Quine, the philosopher, argued that people have a hierarchy of assumptions running from assumptions that are relatively superficial and not that crucial to a model to assumptions that are very, very deep crucial to the model and are deeply held by the supporter of the worldview.

When people get new information that raises questions about the relative adequacy of a model, they tend to modify or adjust the assumptions that are not that important so as to make their model more adequate. If the model continues to underperform normal practice is to go deeper into the hierarchy of assumptions making further changes to improve model performance. This process continues until the model being used has been altered sufficiently so as to now be a relatively adequate model once again, or, the individual will have to go back to the drawing board and build a new model that is relatively adequate, or, the individual will switch models and begin working with another model that is relatively adequate.

Of course, individuals and groups differ on their willingness or ability to move through their assumptions so as to build a relatively adequate model. Some will move fairly quickly to deeper and deeper assumptions; others will only move slowly through their hierarchy of assumptions. I am not saying one approach is better than another because this is just human behavior and all individuals are different.

Now part of the worldview of individuals or communities is that related to religious or theological issues or questions. It is my position that all human beings approach religious or theological questions in exactly the same way that they attack any other type of question. That is, they construct “models” that conform to their worldview and pragmatically use these “models” to make predictions about possible outcomes so that they can make better and better decisions or solve more difficult problems. The only difference between areas of practice is the complexity of the subject being addressed. The ultimate test of these “models” is whether or not they help individuals or communities gain greater unity within themselves and lead better lives: do these “models” help people achieve “the peace that passes all understanding?”

Achieving the goal of living better lives or achieving “the peace that passes all understanding” is dependent upon how well the “models” of the particular worldview do in predicting the possible outcomes of different actions. If the “models” are consistent with the way the creation works then the individual or the community of individuals will make decisions that help to bring unity within the individual or within the community. However, if “models” are not consistent with the way world works then sooner or later the “models” will prove to be inadequate relative to other “models”.

Crucial then is the way that individuals or communities respond to this inadequacy. Some will respond and adjust in a timely manner. Others, however, will take another path. One such response is for people to develop explanations and excuses about why their “models” don’t work as well as others or as well as they would like. If an individual or a community of individuals wants to ‘defend’ their worldview, they will find explanations and excuses outside of their selves or their community to justify maintaining their existing “models”. These explanations and excuses may run all the way from “the weather” to the fact that “others oppose and put down our worldview” to the devil is attacking us. In this way, the individual or the community is able to deflect concerns, at least temporarily, about the deficiency of the “models” they are using and create an “us versus them” attitude among the supporters of their specific worldview.

If the models continue to be inadequate, the individual or community may attempt to cover up the lack of performance of the “models” being used in order to protect the worldview. Thus, censorship, falsifying information, and other means of restricting news that the “models” are not performing well relative to the “models” of other worldviews are common means of hiding the existing inadequacy. Openness and transparency are the victims of such a failure. These efforts may be combined with attacks on the “them” the individual or community has identified as the evil force behind the putting down of “us”!

When an individual or a community begins to turn in on itself in order to protect its worldview and its “models” the next step is to physically and/or mentally enforce the worldview and its “models” on those affected. In this way, the individual or the community “locks down” their worldview and takes on all outsiders that they consider to be a threat. Strict controls and discipline are enforced upon the individual or community being threatened from external forces and, in such a state, the individual or community can actually conduct offensive actions against those that they consider to be their enemies. They believe that the “truth” of their worldview must be defended at all costs.

In my view these individuals and communities cannot succeed. Ultimately, they will succumb to the spread of information that their worldview, at least in its present manifestation, is not relatively adequate and some will adopt the view that their “models” need to be modified so as to incorporate the new information and produce more adequate predictions or those involved will move into other communities that have a worldview that produces more adequate predictions. The problem is that in the interim time period, much unhappiness and dislocation may be inflicted on a lot of people.

Humans are problem solvers and our ability to solve problems is crucial to our survival. Failing to use our abilities of problem solving is not a strategy of survival…either for an individual or for a community.

The "Classic" Christian Revelations

In the posting last week I discussed faith as warranted belief and related this to the revelations of the communities that we belong to. These revelations are divided into those that are ‘classic’ or ‘primordial’, that is the revelations that are associated with the founder or founders of the community in question and the revelations of later members of the community that are ‘repeated or re-enacted’ by individuals as a part of their present experience as members of the community.

It seems important, at this time, to present what I believe to be the ‘classic’ revelations of the community I belong to, the Christian community. Therefore, what follows is what I believe are the foundations.

The first revelation is that there is a god…that is, God exists. This revelation cannot be attributed to anyone one person or group of persons. But, it is the ‘primordial’ revelation. Also, there are no proofs or anything else to accompany the insight. The revelation is presented in the Torah, the Old Testament to the Christians, the foundational document of the Hebrew/Christian tradition and is there, right in the very first sentence of the book: “In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1) In my opinion, we do not need anything more than this to serve as the foundational revelation of our belief. We need no proofs, no justifications. The existence of God is the most basic, deeply held assumption that we possess.

The next two revelations are tied very closely together. Since I am a Christian I will start out with Jesus, for he is my teacher. His public ministry is dated somewhere around 25 to 27 C. E. In the scriptures we can read the following story in three of the four Gospels: Matthew 22: 34-40; Mark 12: 28-34; and Luke 10:25-28. I will quote from the Gospel of Matthew. In chapter 22, verses 34-36, Jesus is asked by a lawyer: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”

Jesus answers: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And, the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22: 37-40) That is, everything else is interpretation.

The quotation marks inside the quotation marks are because Jesus is quoting directly from the Torah. The first quotation, relating to God, comes from Deuteronomy 6: 5; the second, relating to the neighbor, is from Leviticus 19:18. That is, Jesus is just repeating the ‘classic’ or ‘primordial’ revelation that is referenced in the older scriptures.

But, this story is not the only one that exists about the repeating of this revelation. The Jewish religious leader, Hillel, who taught in the period 30 B. C. E. to 10 C. E., emphasized the love of one’s fellow human beings as the essence of the entire Jewish tradition. It is reported that he was asked to summarize the whole of Jewish teaching (while standing on one foot) and he replied:” What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is the explanation…” This, to Hillel was the summation of Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Of course, to Hillel, as it was to all the religious Jews, it was understood that “The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Deuteronomy, 6: 4-5)

The Christian teaching of the revelation is exactly the same as the Jewish teaching; Hillel, as did Jesus, just repeated the ‘classic’ or ‘primordial’ revelation that existed in the older tradition. But, this is not what I find to be remarkable in their statements. What I find remarkable is their claim that “the rest is just explanation” or “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” What this tells me is that to ‘love God’ and ‘to love your neighbor as yourself’ is very, very difficult! It sounds so easy…’love God’…’love your neighbor’…but we have the Old Testament…we have the New Testament…we have all the law and the prophets…and we have two thousand years of additional writings…just to interpret and explain what it means to ‘love God’ and to ‘love your neighbor.’

Why is it so difficult to interpret or explain what love means? It is so difficult because the essence of the Jewish/Christian faith is relationship, not theory. That is, the law and the prophets help us to define and understand what it means to be in relationship with God and with ‘our neighbor’. The law and the prophets are not the basis of a dogmatic structure or a systematic theology. They are a way of living.

But, why do we need all the law and the prophets? Isn’t love…well…just love? The answer to this is that love is not just love. Love means a lot of things. Love is dependent upon the situation. Just look at the way Hillel expresses the second greatest commandment which is like the first: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man…” What does this mean? The only appropriate answer to this is that it means that…it depends! It depends upon what the situation is. And, this is the essence of love. How do I love you when you are doing something despicable? How do I love you when you are kind and gentle? How do I love you when you are sick and not feeling well? How do I love you in the routine of life?

This is why we need the law and the prophets to interpret or explain what it means to love God…to explain what it means to love our neighbor. This is why we need the teachings of Jesus and Hillel. Think back to the story that Jesus tells about the Good Samaritan. What is this story in response to? It is in response to a question a lawyer poses to Jesus. The lawyer asks: “And, just who is my neighbor?” Not only is it difficult to define love…we even have trouble in understanding who our neighbor is!

Do we need interpretation? Do we need explanation? The answer is obvious. The essence of love, it seems to me, is that we need to know enough about the one that is loved to be able to provide the loved one with what they need, and not with what we want to give them. We have to be sufficiently self-less to learn enough so that we can respond to where the loved one is. This is very, very difficult. For example, we need to know as much as we can about God in order to truly love God and respond to him as he would want us to. Likewise, we need to know as much as we can about our neighbor so that we can respond to her/him in a way that is most meaningful to them. This is what strikes me so in the stories about how Jesus healed individuals. We note that first he physically heals them. Then, in almost every case, he gives them a verbal instruction: “Don’t tell anyone about your healing”; or “Go to the synagogue and praise God.” These instructions of Jesus are very personal and must be related to the spiritual healing of the individual. Jesus knows enough about these people so that he can not only physically heal them, but provide a way for them to be healed spiritually in order to become whole human beings. Love is knowing the loved one sufficiently so that you can be where they are and not just where you are! Jesus is a model to us of this kind of love and he wants us to be a model to others of this kind of love.

The final revelation of love given to us by Jesus is captured in the story of his death and of the events leading up to his death. According to the stories we have, Jesus was a threat to a segment of the organized religion of his time. (But, not, seemingly, to the part that Hillel represented.) The leaders of this segment emphasized ‘the Law and the prophets’ in their teachings. In fact, the information provided us in the Gospel teachings indicate that these leaders made ‘the Law and the prophets’ their ultimate concern. They, in this sense, turned the teachings of Jesus and Hillel up-side-down. Jesus told these leaders over and over again, “Think in the right way! Don’t make ‘the Law and the prophets’ your ultimate concern. Make God your ultimate concern!” But this was threatening. It challenged their teaching. And, Jesus, apparently, was sufficiently successful in drawing people to him and to his teaching that they had to do something about him. As the story goes, these threatened leaders conspired to have him killed. The final lesson that Jesus gives us is the example of how he died…he stayed true to his teaching about love to his last breath, even asking for those connected in any way to his death to be forgiven. The life of Jesus shows us how one could live…and how one could die…loving God and loving neighbor.

Problem Solving: The Most Human of Activities

Why is it important that creation is sufficiently ordered? The answer given last week is that creation has to have enough order to it so that human beings can solve problems and make decisions. One must immediately expand this, however, to include all living things because without sufficient order to creation, life, at least in the forms we know it, would not be able to survive and even thrive. Human beings are not the exception. It is just that humans have taken this problem solving ability to the highest level of any species that is known.

If creation were chaotic so that nothing followed from anything else, even the simplest forms of life, whose whole existence is nothing more than a reaction to stimuli, could not survive because there could be no necessary consistency to their reactions. Living and surviving is based on developing responses to repeated patterns in the environment. Without being able to find patterns living things could not survive, let alone evolve into more advanced species. Order is needed so that living creatures can survive and grow, can have offspring and evolve.

This skill evolved many years ago and the ability to solve more and more difficult problems resulted in a species that was better able than others to survive and prosper. The Hominid species, in its present form, survived and has survived spectacularly. Investigators have identified about 20 hominid species that lived at various times and they have estimated that the total number of Hominid species peaked about 2 million years ago. Modern humans are the sole surviving representative of the hominid linage. (pages 52-3) [All references are to J. Wentzel Van Huyssteen, “Alone in the World: Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology,” The Gifford Lectures (Spring 2004), published b. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2006.]

To survive a species must possess some talent(s) or skill(s) that help to account for its survival. The specific talent that seems to have contributed the most to this success of the human species is the ability it has to solve problems. This skill has allowed human beings to become self reflective in that they are the only species to be able to experience guilt, shame, and pride. They are able to anticipate events far into the future. They can invent metaphors and analogies. They speak a language with a grammar. And, they reason about hypothetical circumstances. These are talents that make humans unique among all species. (page 36)

Furthermore, human communities formed and transmitted these talents through cultural evolution that brought more complex and sophisticated cultures into being. Change was always occurring and new structures constantly emerged. (page 38) Special attention is given to the period ranging from 45,000 to 35,000 years ago. It seems that during this time period, human consciousness and intelligence emerged, and along with it, creative, artistic, and religious imaginations. This is referred to as the Upper Paleolithic revolution, the cultural ‘big bang’. From this period the rest, as they say, is history. (pages 64 and 66)

But, what is problem solving? Let’s take the very simple example of a man walking in the woods after there has been a fresh snowfall. The man sees an area of snow where it appears as if someone or something has been walking. The tracks in the snow, however, do not appear to be made by a human being because the pattern is not one of a two-footed mammal walking upright, but of a four-footed beast ambling through the snow with the stomach dragging in the snow from time-to-time. Could it have been a deer? No, the man concludes that the tracks have been made by a bear. He removes himself from the area.

The process here is that the human being observes something…the snow has been disturbed. Furthermore, the disturbance seems to be in the pattern of tracks that a living thing might have caused. The man instinctively finds a model that could apply to this situation. The model must be able to make some predictions as to what kind of living thing would have created the specific tracks that are observed. The tracks could have been made by a human being. The tracks could have been made by a deer. The tracks could have been made by a bear. Focusing on the specific tracks that he observes, he assigns probabilities as to the likelihood of each of the possible causes. He decides that the most likely creature that could have produced these tracks is a bear and bears attack human beings…so…he makes the decision to leave the area.

Arguably, this example describes the problem solving process, one that results in a decision. Simplifying the process, the man observed some information (the disturbance of the snow), he selects a model that seemed to be appropriate to the situation, he made some forecasts, he applied probabilities to the possible outcomes, and then he made a decision based on the likelihood of each possible action he could take given the expected outcomes.

What are the crucial elements in this process that are specifically tied to human problem solving and decision making? Humans can invent ‘metaphors and analogies’ or models, they can deal with ‘hypothetical circumstances’ like the existence of different types of causes and different possible actions that can be taken, and they ‘anticipate’ or predict the future. Furthermore, human beings can do this without complete knowledge of the specific situation they face! That is, creation is sufficiently ordered so that they can make relatively adequate decisions without knowing the whole story. They can act even though they know that ‘something is missing’. (See posting of February 1, 2008, “What is Missing?”)

For now, two comments need to be made about the models that a problem solver uses. Since the problem solver uses models to make forecasts of outcomes upon which his/her decisions are based, the models must be grounded in their ability to perform. That is, a model must help an individual make good decisions. David Tracy writes that, for a given situation, a model must be relatively adequate which means that it must be logically consistent and must be able to forecast as least as well as any other logically consistent model used in a situation like the one being considered. Problem solving/decision making is not just an intellectual exercise. Actions are taken and actions have consequences. The objective is to make better and better decisions and solve more and more difficult problems.

The second comment relates to the structure of the model that the problem solver uses. When we use the term model we most often think of logically formal models or mathematical models. But, formal or mathematical models are adequate only for a limited number of situations, usually situations where only a few causative factors are relevant and the relationship between the relevant factors is fairly clear. But, the vast majority of situations faced by human beings are not of this kind. Many of them contain far too many potentially causative factors for the individual to mentally process and use and the relationships between the relative factors tend to be very complex and uncertain. Human beings have developed many different ways to model relationships given these vague and ambiguous situations. They use stories and narratives, fables and proverbs, rules of thumb and superstitions, to just name a few. In using their abilities to abstract from reality, humans build models of all sorts to assist them to solve the problems they face from those pertaining to daily life, to building organizational structures, to science, to discussing mysteries, to religion…to everything that concerns them.