THE ART AND SCIENCE OF DISCERNMENT (PART 1)

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF DISCERNMENT (PART 1)

Hebrews 5:14 Solid food is for those who are mature, who through training have the skill to recognize the difference between right and wrong.(nlt)

God has blessed us with cognitive and moral faculties to navigate the world. These faculties act as our internal policeman, an alarm system and an internal diagnostic system restraining us from error and danger. However, just as muscles grow and become stronger by continuous right exercises, so do these faculties grow by deliberate and correct use.

The conscience is the primary centre for our moral faculties. It functions on the law of God written in it. (Romans2:15). A person who continuously violates their conscience continously weakens its sensitivity. The degeneration of the conscience goes through these phases
1. First their conscience sharply condemns them for the sin/error (good conscience)
2. The condemnation weakens when the conscience is continously violated and suppressed. (seared conscience )
3. The condemnation ceases completely. (dead conscience)
4. They now begin to call the evil good and the good evil. (corrupted conscience). At level 4 people begin to see it as their moral duty to fight good and promote evil. (John16:2)

Similarly, the mind is the primary faculty of our cognitive faculties. It functions on logic or rules of inference. A person who continously violates the law of their mind (rules of inference) continously weakens its sensitivity in determining valid,invalid,sound and unsound arguments. The process of the degeneration of the mind is at follows.
1. A mind that is able to detect logical fallacies and inconsistencies and is able to make valid arguments (rational mind)
2. Compromised Mind: The mind begins to prioritize personal bias, comfort, or groupthink over objective facts. It notices inconsistencies but chooses to ignore them through cognitive dissonance, weakening its commitment to logical rigor.
3. Irrational (Absurd) Mind: The "alarm" for logical absurdity ceases to function. The mind no longer recognizes contradictions or fallacies within its own reasoning. It operates on purely emotional or impulsive drivers, losing the ability to follow a coherent chain of thought to its conclusion.
4. Inverted (Delusional) Mind: The mind now perceives logic as "oppression" and fallacies as "enlightenment." It views objective facts as threats or lies and considers irrationality to be a superior form of wisdom. At this level, the individual sees it as their intellectual duty to dismantle truth, attack sound reasoning, and promote falsehood as the only valid reality.

It seems to me then that the most powerful way maintain the health of these discerning organs is to
1. Prioritise facts over feelings. Logical consistency over what sounds true.
2. Prioritise doing things that are consistent with your conscience.

Lets put this to practice with an example.

Suppose we are to discern the truth in this proposition; 

The claim that Rahab of Jericho is an ancestor of Jesus. While this sounds so inspirational. Her story as one of faith and inclusion in the messianic lineage make for pleasant redemption story.

The natural instincts would be to accept this as true. However, no matter how badly we want this to be true, we must place the health of our cognitive faculties above that desire. This means we ask dispassionate questions like what are the facts and can we make sound arguments with the facts to determine whether that is the case.

And when we go or at least when I go by the biblical text I am unable to see that being demonstrated.. i.e Within the biblical text alone, the identification of Matthew’s Rahab with the Rahab of Jericho is inferred but not demonstrated.Therefore, the matter is textually inconclusive,

Bottomline, Rahab of Jericho may well be an ancestor of Jesus or may not. It seems plausible that she may be an ancestor of Jesus given the text but the text doesn't seem to conclude that under my scrutiny. So inasmuch as I would have love for that to be the case, I wouldn't push that claim as certainty because rules of inference my mind runs on doesn't allow that.

I may not know all the facts, and i may even be wrong in my textual analysis. “I’m using a strict standard. Unless the text clearly says two people are the same, I won’t treat it as settled. You can reasonably assume they’re the same person, but assuming something is not the same as the text proving it.”

but the virtue here is I am careful or at least I want to be careful to scrutinise my own reasoning for validity and soundness.