Assumptions, Data, And Their Relationship (Brief)
Forum category
Assumptions, Data, And Their Relationship (Brief)
Introduction
In a discussion from February to March, an idea was proposed. The discussion was not apologetic in nature. Or at least it did not have to do with defending the faith against unbelievers; however, it may have been apologetic in the sense of a Christian defending an interpretation. What was this idea? It is simple. The idea is that if one approaches the text of Scripture without presuppositions, then he will be able to discern the correct meaning. The idea can be expressed with many different words. The word “presupposition” is not necessary; one could substitute “assumption,” “preconception,” “a-priori,” etc.
Purpose
The purpose of this post is to begin exploring a few questions. What are presuppositions? Is it even possible to examine the “data” without them? What would “presupposition-less” data look like? In short, this post will take this stance. Presuppositions are unavoidable; data is impossible to examine without presuppositions; and “neutral/brute” data is meaningless. The following will argue for these points.
Presuppositions
Dictionary.com gives the following meaning to the word, “to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.” This can certainly take many forms. For illustration purposes, “language” will be explored.
“Alef, Bet, Gimel, Dalet, Buraysheet, Vuyaal.”
Now, without any preconceptions or a-priori commitments to language, give the meaning. The illustration would probably be better if the actual letters themselves were used, because of their foreignness. Again, you need to give the meaning of the above without any preconceptions or a-priori commitments to language. What is the meaning? After all, we always and without any exception want all of our study to be based off of an inductive study; we don’t want to impose our presuppositions on the data. (so the saying goes)
Most likely, those who have not had some exposure to language in the Middle East, an education in the language itself, or some exposure to a social setting where the language is spoken will find the quoted linguistic symbols above to be meaningless. This is simply because that person will not have the basics of Grammar, vocabulary, and symbol recognition (attaching pronunciation to the symbol & attaching that to a meaning). In other words they do not have the necessary assumed grid from which to operate. The answer is really quite simple. The first four are the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The last two are not letters; they are words. “Buraysheet” is the first word of the Hebrew Bible, and “Yuyall” is the last word of the Hebrew Bible found in 2 Chronicles.
The point is simple. Without the grid, the data is meaningless. And especially if one imposes the “cannot appeal to language” stipulation. Then, even the letters and words above cannot have meaning. To impose the restriction is to negate ever arriving at the meaning.
Application
The discussion, where this idea was found, appeared in a discussion over theology. At least one person used this idea to pigeonhole all those interacted with as being biased. The tactic was to point out the theological label or system of thought; and then call it an irresponsible imposition upon the Biblical data.
This then pushes the discussion into the realm of Systematic Theology versus Biblical theology, and this pushes the discussion into the realm of deductive versus inductive approaches to the Biblical data.
First, if a purely inductive approach renders the data incomprehensible, then the question concerns not “whether or not one approaches with preconceptions;” but the question concerns “with which preconceptions one approaches the data.” The very nature of the discussion is revamped.
Second, an example needs to be given. This will suppose the typical approach of letting the data speak for itself. One needs to jettison words like Calvinism and Arminianism and approach the text without those preconceptions. However, one should observe that after that person has jettisoned those labels, the conceptual grid may still remain. So now that person needs to jettison those conceptual grids. Now the person is set to approach the text. But wait! He is assuming that he can read the text; he is assuming that his mind is capable of determining contradiction from apparent contradiction; he is assuming a certain view of history (historiography) whenever he reads a narrative (or else it is meaningless); he is assuming that his eyes are perceiving the words on the page correctly; he is assuming that the English translation being read is correct; he is assuming that he/she and the book is real (metaphysical assumption); he is assuming that “reality” is of a certain nature; he is also assuming that correct thinking leads to correct conclusions when confronted with the data; he is assuming that his mind is working properly; he is hopefully assuming the authority of Scripture over his mind; and he is assuming that he is not brining any other bad assumption to the text (etc). In short, there is no shortage of assumptions one is bringing to the text when he says he is approaching it without assumptions. One may as well be saying that he is going to approach life without living.
The point is simple. Negating labels does not really solve anything, other than to eliminate potentially hazardous political jargon (political maneuver). Negating labels does nothing towards eliminating preconceptions, for preconceptions are a necessary and inevitable way of working with the data.
Third, when one says, “I approach with no preconceptions,” this is at best misleading; and at worst this is just plain deceptive.
Fourth, one who has presuppositions/assumptions is not caught up in a irretrievably tangled web of post-modern subjectivity. However, this whole issue goes beyond the main point of this post.
Fifth, when one employs the “jettison Arminianism or Calvinism” preconception, this is to say that that person will assume from the outset that these two positions are default wrong. It is to assume a-priori a predetermined method that excludes those two options from the outset. The (personal) approach of this author is to try to get to the back of the two systems to find out what are the guiding assumptions that determine the data; assess the assumptions; and then follow the assumption most warranted.
Sixth, this post is not arguing against an inductive method. It is arguing against the idea of a “pure” inductive method. Great merit is in the inductive approach to studying the Bible. Great deception is in the pretence of a purely inductive method.
The Point
The point will be restated. Presuppositions are unavoidable; data is impossible to examine without presuppositions; and “neutral/brute” data is meaningless. The key question then appears to be, “How does one discern between differing assumptions?”
I wrote this with the intent to inform and caution others, and I hope to learn from the interaction that others bring to the issue. That is why I am posting this on Sharperiron. The fact that I’m posting this on April 1 has nothing intentionally to do with its content. I had a little free time, so here is this post. I look forward to reading the responses.
Introduction
In a discussion from February to March, an idea was proposed. The discussion was not apologetic in nature. Or at least it did not have to do with defending the faith against unbelievers; however, it may have been apologetic in the sense of a Christian defending an interpretation. What was this idea? It is simple. The idea is that if one approaches the text of Scripture without presuppositions, then he will be able to discern the correct meaning. The idea can be expressed with many different words. The word “presupposition” is not necessary; one could substitute “assumption,” “preconception,” “a-priori,” etc.
Purpose
The purpose of this post is to begin exploring a few questions. What are presuppositions? Is it even possible to examine the “data” without them? What would “presupposition-less” data look like? In short, this post will take this stance. Presuppositions are unavoidable; data is impossible to examine without presuppositions; and “neutral/brute” data is meaningless. The following will argue for these points.
Presuppositions
Dictionary.com gives the following meaning to the word, “to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.” This can certainly take many forms. For illustration purposes, “language” will be explored.
“Alef, Bet, Gimel, Dalet, Buraysheet, Vuyaal.”
Now, without any preconceptions or a-priori commitments to language, give the meaning. The illustration would probably be better if the actual letters themselves were used, because of their foreignness. Again, you need to give the meaning of the above without any preconceptions or a-priori commitments to language. What is the meaning? After all, we always and without any exception want all of our study to be based off of an inductive study; we don’t want to impose our presuppositions on the data. (so the saying goes)
Most likely, those who have not had some exposure to language in the Middle East, an education in the language itself, or some exposure to a social setting where the language is spoken will find the quoted linguistic symbols above to be meaningless. This is simply because that person will not have the basics of Grammar, vocabulary, and symbol recognition (attaching pronunciation to the symbol & attaching that to a meaning). In other words they do not have the necessary assumed grid from which to operate. The answer is really quite simple. The first four are the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The last two are not letters; they are words. “Buraysheet” is the first word of the Hebrew Bible, and “Yuyall” is the last word of the Hebrew Bible found in 2 Chronicles.
The point is simple. Without the grid, the data is meaningless. And especially if one imposes the “cannot appeal to language” stipulation. Then, even the letters and words above cannot have meaning. To impose the restriction is to negate ever arriving at the meaning.
Application
The discussion, where this idea was found, appeared in a discussion over theology. At least one person used this idea to pigeonhole all those interacted with as being biased. The tactic was to point out the theological label or system of thought; and then call it an irresponsible imposition upon the Biblical data.
This then pushes the discussion into the realm of Systematic Theology versus Biblical theology, and this pushes the discussion into the realm of deductive versus inductive approaches to the Biblical data.
First, if a purely inductive approach renders the data incomprehensible, then the question concerns not “whether or not one approaches with preconceptions;” but the question concerns “with which preconceptions one approaches the data.” The very nature of the discussion is revamped.
Second, an example needs to be given. This will suppose the typical approach of letting the data speak for itself. One needs to jettison words like Calvinism and Arminianism and approach the text without those preconceptions. However, one should observe that after that person has jettisoned those labels, the conceptual grid may still remain. So now that person needs to jettison those conceptual grids. Now the person is set to approach the text. But wait! He is assuming that he can read the text; he is assuming that his mind is capable of determining contradiction from apparent contradiction; he is assuming a certain view of history (historiography) whenever he reads a narrative (or else it is meaningless); he is assuming that his eyes are perceiving the words on the page correctly; he is assuming that the English translation being read is correct; he is assuming that he/she and the book is real (metaphysical assumption); he is assuming that “reality” is of a certain nature; he is also assuming that correct thinking leads to correct conclusions when confronted with the data; he is assuming that his mind is working properly; he is hopefully assuming the authority of Scripture over his mind; and he is assuming that he is not brining any other bad assumption to the text (etc). In short, there is no shortage of assumptions one is bringing to the text when he says he is approaching it without assumptions. One may as well be saying that he is going to approach life without living.
The point is simple. Negating labels does not really solve anything, other than to eliminate potentially hazardous political jargon (political maneuver). Negating labels does nothing towards eliminating preconceptions, for preconceptions are a necessary and inevitable way of working with the data.
Third, when one says, “I approach with no preconceptions,” this is at best misleading; and at worst this is just plain deceptive.
Fourth, one who has presuppositions/assumptions is not caught up in a irretrievably tangled web of post-modern subjectivity. However, this whole issue goes beyond the main point of this post.
Fifth, when one employs the “jettison Arminianism or Calvinism” preconception, this is to say that that person will assume from the outset that these two positions are default wrong. It is to assume a-priori a predetermined method that excludes those two options from the outset. The (personal) approach of this author is to try to get to the back of the two systems to find out what are the guiding assumptions that determine the data; assess the assumptions; and then follow the assumption most warranted.
Sixth, this post is not arguing against an inductive method. It is arguing against the idea of a “pure” inductive method. Great merit is in the inductive approach to studying the Bible. Great deception is in the pretence of a purely inductive method.
The Point
The point will be restated. Presuppositions are unavoidable; data is impossible to examine without presuppositions; and “neutral/brute” data is meaningless. The key question then appears to be, “How does one discern between differing assumptions?”
I wrote this with the intent to inform and caution others, and I hope to learn from the interaction that others bring to the issue. That is why I am posting this on Sharperiron. The fact that I’m posting this on April 1 has nothing intentionally to do with its content. I had a little free time, so here is this post. I look forward to reading the responses.
- 1 view
Caleb,
I hate to see a good post without responses, and I know the frustration of preparing (too much) for a post only to be underwhelmed by responses. This is one reason I don’t use forums anymore (I visit SI irregularly, and rarely post anymore), and why I stopped blogging.
The actual content of your post is another reason I don’t blog or post in forums much anymore - too little control over people’s backgrounds, or presuppositions as you put it, and intentions makes a good conversation the black swan of the internet. I agree with what you say about presuppositions, and indeed tried to explain as necessary the role they play in discussions on SI (if you haven’t, you need to read Charles Taylor on backgrounds). But the problem is that becoming aware of one’s presuppositions is enormously difficult, and people don’t take kindly to an argumentative opponent pointing them out (in general).
It’s properly a matter of education, of becoming self-conscious, and it requires many things, not least of which is the acquisition of concepts that one understands, and then in light of which sees reflected in one’s own experience, history, and ideas. Learning to name things, which is partly what conceptualization is about, is a crucial part of education precisely because thereby we can bring to self-consciousness and thus actively and explicitly reflect upon the things (at least some of them) that constitute our identity. Concepts enable self-conscious by functioning like a mirror, in which we can see ourselves, thus allowing an ability for self-examination that is only possible through external (the mirror or concepts) mediation.
I could say more about this but, like your post, sadly, it’s rather beyond the proper use of the forum, as you have discovered.
Once one gives up on trying to educate people who don’t want to be educated (or not by oneself, or online - quite a sensible reaction, I should add), then one must resign oneself to having on the internet only those conversations in which the topics are either trivial, or one’s background assumptions are sufficiently shared by the other participants to enable meaningful discussions and disagreement. What is striking is that even on SI, many such meaningful discussions are impossible, even among people who otherwise share many assumptions and presuppositions, at least when it comes to conversations about, say, Calvinism and Arminianism. I don’t think this is bad, or necessarily says something negative about the participants; it does teach us something about how complex beliefs are, how they relate to our personal identities, why and how we adopt and adapt them, and what we are seeking in conversing about them. Usually, people aren’t clear why they are talking or arguing about things; that lack of clarity is what contributes to the discussion’s lack of a center, or its inability to genuinely progress or resolve itself further on from where it began.
I hate to see a good post without responses, and I know the frustration of preparing (too much) for a post only to be underwhelmed by responses. This is one reason I don’t use forums anymore (I visit SI irregularly, and rarely post anymore), and why I stopped blogging.
The actual content of your post is another reason I don’t blog or post in forums much anymore - too little control over people’s backgrounds, or presuppositions as you put it, and intentions makes a good conversation the black swan of the internet. I agree with what you say about presuppositions, and indeed tried to explain as necessary the role they play in discussions on SI (if you haven’t, you need to read Charles Taylor on backgrounds). But the problem is that becoming aware of one’s presuppositions is enormously difficult, and people don’t take kindly to an argumentative opponent pointing them out (in general).
It’s properly a matter of education, of becoming self-conscious, and it requires many things, not least of which is the acquisition of concepts that one understands, and then in light of which sees reflected in one’s own experience, history, and ideas. Learning to name things, which is partly what conceptualization is about, is a crucial part of education precisely because thereby we can bring to self-consciousness and thus actively and explicitly reflect upon the things (at least some of them) that constitute our identity. Concepts enable self-conscious by functioning like a mirror, in which we can see ourselves, thus allowing an ability for self-examination that is only possible through external (the mirror or concepts) mediation.
I could say more about this but, like your post, sadly, it’s rather beyond the proper use of the forum, as you have discovered.
Once one gives up on trying to educate people who don’t want to be educated (or not by oneself, or online - quite a sensible reaction, I should add), then one must resign oneself to having on the internet only those conversations in which the topics are either trivial, or one’s background assumptions are sufficiently shared by the other participants to enable meaningful discussions and disagreement. What is striking is that even on SI, many such meaningful discussions are impossible, even among people who otherwise share many assumptions and presuppositions, at least when it comes to conversations about, say, Calvinism and Arminianism. I don’t think this is bad, or necessarily says something negative about the participants; it does teach us something about how complex beliefs are, how they relate to our personal identities, why and how we adopt and adapt them, and what we are seeking in conversing about them. Usually, people aren’t clear why they are talking or arguing about things; that lack of clarity is what contributes to the discussion’s lack of a center, or its inability to genuinely progress or resolve itself further on from where it began.
Joseph,
Thank you for taking the time to comment. When it comes to the value of forums, I find it valuable in this sense. (1) I’m often challenged to think about things that I’ve never thought about before. I especially appreciate one who is able to use the original languages competently in opposition to my own views; I find those individuals the most helpful and sometimes corrective. (2) While I do not enjoy certain kinds of exchanges where it is more of a political debate where horrible techniques of argument are used. I do appreciate learning “how” people argue. I enjoy looking for the center of their thought, to discern what is really driving their beliefs. Because of the above post about assumptions and data, I’m not usually concerned with what verses are brought up; I’m concerned more with how they are used, whether or not they are exegeted, how they are shaped to conform to the driving principle or assumption.
I’m going to look for that “Charles Taylor on backgrounds” exchange.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. When it comes to the value of forums, I find it valuable in this sense. (1) I’m often challenged to think about things that I’ve never thought about before. I especially appreciate one who is able to use the original languages competently in opposition to my own views; I find those individuals the most helpful and sometimes corrective. (2) While I do not enjoy certain kinds of exchanges where it is more of a political debate where horrible techniques of argument are used. I do appreciate learning “how” people argue. I enjoy looking for the center of their thought, to discern what is really driving their beliefs. Because of the above post about assumptions and data, I’m not usually concerned with what verses are brought up; I’m concerned more with how they are used, whether or not they are exegeted, how they are shaped to conform to the driving principle or assumption.
I’m going to look for that “Charles Taylor on backgrounds” exchange.
Discussion