A friend wrote an entry yesterday that got me thinking – the natural state of so-called ‘rational thinkers’ is, at best, skepticism and, at worst, out-right cynicism and condescension.  The rational thinker realizes that there is always something more to learn, something more to know.  He realizes that never in his life will he be able to get his mind around everything there is to know and experience; he realizes that any conclusion he comes to is going to be prone to error.  Every fact and tidbit is subject to revision as more data is received, processed, and catalogued.  Doubt and uncertainty become, to some extent, a way of life because everything the rationalist knows is subject to change, given the right sort of revelations (usually involving new things coming from the scientific community).

So it’s ironic, then, that the more knowledge one possesses, the less rational that person can become.  Human beings are, by their very natures, emotional creatures.  Everything we do and think involves an emotional factor, an irrational reaction that rationality by itself often cannot predict or counter.  Because everything the rationalist knows can be called into question, can be subject to revision, there is an inherent emotional stressor (called doubt) present that often goes unidentified, one that, if left unchecked, can actually undermine the very process of rational thought. 

The rationalist attempts to logically work his way through a problem area, using critical thinking as his primary tool.  He works from a set of presuppositions based on those bits of knowledge he already possesses and has been able to fit together, leaving any of them open to revision in the event he finds that the new information he has just gleaned sheds some new light on any of those beliefs.  He neglects, however, to account for the seemingly random emotional factor, disregarding it as unimportant exactly because it is not ‘rational.’ So, when he is faced with a confrontational factor during this rational process, he is frequently unable to deal with it and locks down his rational system, ultimately by walling himself behind those things he already believes and sees as ‘safe’ and solid because those are the things he has already worked through and believes to be true.  As a result any information that was presented in a confrontational manner is disregarded as illogical and irrational – whether or not it actually is – because it evoked an adverse, stressful emotional response.  This decision is typically reinforced when it is philosophical in nature, when it is something that rational science cannot itself examine directly. 

The presupposed way of thinking is, therefore, reinforced – it’s safe and does not make the rational thinker feel stressed or upset.  It is ordered, structured, logical and is thus deemed to be the better conclusion of the two.

Sometimes, then, rational thinking can, in fact, be an emotional reaction and therefore be the more irrational of the two.  True rational thought should recognize the presence of emotion and not only prevent it from ruling the thought process but should take it into account and even integrate it.

“Follow your heart.”
“Do what feels right.”
“If it feels good, how can it be bad?”

Do any of these sound familiar?  And this one may seem like it’s different from the three above, but it’s not:

“You have to do what’s right for you.”

These are some of the most common phrases heard in our culture today.  Postmodernism has infiltrated just about every aspect of our lives.  Truth is no longer conceived of in absolute terms, so people are free to determine truth for themselves.¹ Ultimately, what happens is that people use themselves for their reference point, since in a relative-truth world there can be no other reference point than one’s own experience.  More specifically, people end up using their own feelings and emotions to guide them because feelings are powerful, salient, and readily available.

There are two major problems with this system.  The first is that feelings are inherently self-serving.  This is not necessarily a problem all the time, since our feelings are a prime motivator for protecting our hearts from emotional harm at the hands of another.  Where the problem comes in is when following our feelings causes us to pursue our own wants and desires, everyone else be damned.  I have seen many people hurt because someone else ‘followed their heart’, making decisions that were ultimately detrimental to other people around them.

The second problem leads logically from the first.  Feelings are not always accurate reflections on reality.  In essence, just because I happen to feel a certain way does not necessarily mean that the situation at hand fits well with that feeling.  For instance, I can feel supremely confident about my ability to handle Situation B because I feel great about the way I handled Situation A (which is, in my mind, similar or related to Situation B).  But I quickly find, upon taking on the tasks of Situation B, that I do not, in fact, have the ability to handle Situation B at all, thus I fail.  The mistake here is in trusting my feelings to guide me because they were not giving me an accurate picture of the situation.

We live in such an individualistic society that pursuing our own needs, wants, and desires before those of others is simply a matter of course.  It’s so natural and instinctive that we do it without even thinking about it.  So, it’s logical that our philosophies have changed to more easily allow us to do this.  Now, we justify our selfishness and self-involvement by urging each other to follow our hearts and to do what feels right, even when what feels right really isn’t.  We are quickly losing any sense of what is true and good and right, except for what we determine for ourselves.  Yet, somehow, we have failed to see that people are themselves flawed and prone to mistakes.  So, how can people who make mistakes somehow determine what is true and right based upon their own flawed feelings?  Yet we do so every day.

Feelings do compliment the decision-making process quite well.  Yet, feelings are also unruly and fickle, changing almost at the drop of a hat.  Feelings make terrific servants but horrible masters, and as such, they must be governed and controlled as best as possible.  No decision should ever be made exclusively at the behest of the emotions.  Such a thing is risky because the emotions can, and will, deceive.  Logic and rationality must win out when making decisions.  They can, however, consult the emotions, but the message of the emotions must be taken with a grain of salt.  That niggling sense of fear could tell you that something is wrong about your decision, that maybe there are other factors that need to be considered; or that fear could simply be the fear of stepping into a new situation.  Emotions can provide indicators of what might be, but they should not be relied upon to tell you what is. 

Keep a short leash on those feelings.  And whenever someone tells you to just do what feels right, remind them that there is a better way.  Engage that brain and push the heart to the background.  Letting your heart rule over your mind is surefire way to get yourself into deep trouble.²

1. Do you see the irony in that statement?[back]
2. By the way, following one’s heart can be good when pursuing one’s dreams.  Just make sure that in doing so, you aren’t stepping on everyone around you, that you are considering more than just your own personal needs and desires.[back]

It is the extremists of any major religion that end up giving the whole a bad reputation.  Bad news travels more quickly than good news does, and poor behavior is more easily remembered and available to memory than is good behavior.  So what typically ends up happening is that the whole organization gets placed under the banner of those who make the most noise, even though they are not necessarily a representative sample of that population.  Christians are often perceived as hateful, unforgiving bigots because there are many who are exactly that.  Note, however, that I did not say ‘majority’ or ‘most’ because it has been my own experience that, in general, those who call themselves Christian do strive to live up to the compassionate, forgiving ideals of the Bible and of Christ’s teachings.  The same goes, as I understand it, for those of the Muslim faith.  The vast majority are a peace-loving people, and those who perform heinous acts of murder and bombing are the fringe extremists, just as are those Christians who bomb abortion clinics, twisting the ideals of their religion into a perverted distortion of the actual.  In the process they give the entire faith a black eye, and the world sees the whole as being just like the extremists. 

So, the question becomes then, what underlies these fringe, extreme groups?  What drives them to justify horrible acts and behaviors that are counter to the basic tenets of belief that define the faith they claim to espouse?  Ultimately, I can only conclude that they are flawed people, just like the rest of us, who, whether through willful disobedience or through genuine ignorance, misunderstand the teachings of their religious system in such a way as to justify hatred and murder.  They are the people who lack the personal discipline to control their emotional impulses, who act on their base desires, rather than striving to live up to a higher ideal of morality.  They are the people who pick and choose which parts of their canon to abide by, rather than understanding that the bits they follow are parts of a whole and cannot be separated from it without ending up, by definition, with a completely different set of beliefs.  They are the people who were already angry and bitter, who found a system of belief that was attractive to them and fit at least somewhat with their own preconceived notions of how the world should operate.  They are the people who then twisted the system of belief to fit their own ideals, rather then reshaping their own ideals to fit the system.  In so doing they found justification and an outlet for the violence already in their hearts, and by acting upon that violence, then sullied the name and reputation of the group they claimed to be a part of.  Christians who bomb abortion clinics or express hatred, bigotry, and superiority to those not like them are Christian only in name; they are not Christian in actuality because anyone who truly understands the teachings of the Bible would not perform the sorts of behaviors that these extremists tend toward.  Similarly, Muslims who fly planes into buildings and strap bombs to themselves and blow up a group of children, and who decapitate innocent victims are Muslim in name only; they do not represent the Muslim faith at large or the teaching of the Qu’ran and do more harm to people of that faith than good.  These extremists cannot and should not be called Christian or Muslim, even though they call themselves that.  They should be called murderers and hatemongers and should be separated, both in name and in deed, from the whole of the groups that they claim to be part of.  Yet, perhaps because it is convenient to do so, they continue to be categorized into the group by the population at large, thereby stereotyping the whole by the deeds of the few.  Unfair?  You bet.  But stereotyping is easy and convenient, even if it is at times unfair and makes it harder for those with the true ideals of their beliefs to communicate them.  It is a challenge, no doubt, and that is why unity of the whole is necessary in order to overcome the misdeeds of the few.

Ever feel like you’re trapped in a particular mood or attitude and can’t get out of it? Well, sometimes I think it’s all in your head. Literally. For instance, this evening I found myself feeling irritable and cranky (still do, in fact). It was getting to the point where I was starting to get snippy with my wife, and I knew I didn’t want to do that. I walked out of the room for a moment to get a grip over myself before coming back and trying to act civilly. I even forced myself to make a joke. And the funniest thing happened—I found myself mood actually changing for the better. I had made the decision to behave better, I forced myself to actually do so (even though I didn’t feel like it), and ultimately I found my mood shifting to match the behavior.

And of course, now I’m reminded of the social psychology principle that states that people’s attitudes tend to actually shift toward their behaviors and not the other way around. In my own Christian walk, I have often forced myself to do those things that I knew I was supposed to do, even when I didn’t feel like it. And 99% of the time, I quickly found my attitude shifting to match. (That last 1% of the time was when I was just bound and determined to
rebel.)

Moral of the story: If you want to get out of that slump, try doing what you’re supposed to do anyway. I’ll bet you’ll be surprised at the result.

There is a common misconception in our culture that love is a feeling, that it happens automatically, and that the lover has no control over its coming and its going. This is readily apparent in the high divorce rate, in the apathy and carelessness of ‘casual sex’, and in the shamelessness of the media (probably the loudest promoter of this myth). Part of this is probably due to the fact that physical and romantic attractions do encompass a great deal of feeling and emotion, both of which tend to be very salient and thus more easily recognized and, to an extent, more easily defined and demonstrated. And so long as these feelings and emotions continue, love is easy to extend.

The trouble is that love, while inherently very emotional, is really a decision made by the lover on behalf of the loved. It is a definitive commitment, made at a specific point, by the lover that says, “No matter what happens and no matter how my feelings may fluctuate and change, I will love this individual.” Because feelings do shift and change over time, across every topic and issue. That is part of human nature. But what should not change is the commitment to go on loving someone once that love has been extended.

Christ tells His people to love with heart, mind, soul, and strength. Paul encourages husbands to love their wives as themselves and as Christ loved the Church. Conscious decisions. And you know Christ didn’t perform his most magnificent work of love because of feeling. No, indeed, He made a conscious decision, submitting his will to the Father, even though His own emotions were encouraging him otherwise.

So, while you may feel an attraction toward someone, even have a ‘crush’ on them, you cannot say that you are ‘in love’ until you have made that decision to do so. Feelings are tremendous facilitators to love, but all too often they deceive and betray, leaving a trail of broken hearts and broken relationships, when they are placed in the driver’s seat of love and relationships.

Feelings make better servants than masters.