| On what basis do people make decisions? Since decisions typically involve a moral choice, one could argue that decisions are made based on moral epistemology.
Moral refers to ethical practices that are based on a perception of right versus wrong, good versus evil, or best versus better. Epistemology is the study of the source and nature of knowledge. A moral epistemological decision is therefore a decision that is based on knowledge gleaned from an ethical consideration.
Behavioral scientists conducted research to better understand what drives moral epistemological decisions. Specifically, is the primary driver rational or emotional? If you ask a typical person, the answer would probably be that his or her decisions are rational.
Researchers tested the pedestrian assumption that rationalism trumps emotionalism in making decisions. They concluded that decisions are made emotionally and then supported rationally. (note 1)
A separate study was performed by economists focused on neuroeconomics—a new field of study that seeks to understand the basis for human decisions. As with the behavioral scientists, the economists discovered that human beings make decisions primarily based on emotions and then justify the decisions rationally. (note 2)
This conclusion is probably repugnant to many people who would rather believe that people are fundamentally more rational than emotional. But the empirical data argue the opposite. This means, for example, that decisions about the food we buy, the cars we drive, the people we marry, the careers and jobs we select, the faith in God we profess, and even the public issues we vote on are all choices mostly made emotionally.
Salespeople have long understood that people make decisions emotionally. If human decisions are primarily rational, there would be little need for salespeople; all that would be required would be a mechanism to convey the features and benefits of a product or service. Customers could analyze the options and make an objective unemotional decision without any influence from a salesperson.
Politicians understand the power of emotion to influence people, which is why political campaigns are filled with bombastic rhetoric and staged pep rallies. If people made voting decisions based primarily on reason, then political candidates would not focus on campaigning but would focus instead on developing a clear, cogent, credible, and compelling policy platform. The voters would then weigh the pros and cons of the various platforms and vote without the hoopla of campaigning, which would save millions of dollars. But this does not happen, because people make decisions emotionally and then rationalize their decisions.
Christian philosopher Dennis Peacocke also teaches that decisions are driven by emotion. He says: “the mind justifies what the heart has chosen.” His epistemology, however, is based first on Scripture, which theologians call special revelation, and secondarily on empirical research, which theologians call general revelation. Note for example, Genesis 3:1–7:
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'you shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make [one] wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. (NKJV)
Eve’s decision was based on what she perceived with her eyes both physically and metaphorically. Physically, she saw that the fruit of the tree was pleasant to look at and therefore desirable to eat. Metaphorically, she saw that it was desirable to facilitate God-like wisdom. Was her decision to eat the fruit made rationally or emotionally? If it were rational, she would have weighed the veracity of the word of God (the Creator) over the word of the serpent (a creature). God said if you eat of the fruit, you will die, but the serpent said that God lied. Rationally, who would you believe—the Creator or a creature? It seems irrational to think that a creature would be more credible than the Creator. Therefore, Eve could not have been thinking rationally when she made her decision. The apostle Paul noted, Eve was deceived (note 3) by the serpent; therefore she did not evaluate her decision based on sound reason. Furthermore, she saw that “it was pleasant to the eyes,” which suggests that she was drawn emotionally to believe the lie of the serpent. It appears that her emotion drove her decision and the rational deception of the serpent simply justified her emotional choice.
But unlike Eve, Adam was not deceived. (note 4) He knew what he was doing; he knew the consequences of his sin would be death. Nevertheless, he subordinated his reasoning to Eve’s emotion. Therefore the first human beings, the ancestors of all people, made their decision to sin based primarily on emotion.
This pattern of decision making is still with us today. Because of the principle of reproduction according to kind, (note 5) every human being has the same bias as Adam and Eve, which is why it is axiomatic that “the mind justifies what the heart has chosen.”
Behavioral scientists and economists using empirical research agree with Scripture—people make decisions emotionally and then justify them rationally, just as Adam and Eve did.
The time and expense of these empirical studies could have been saved by simply studying Scripture. But empirical researchers are not inclined to give credence to Scripture; rather, they follow man-made ideas, such as, the doctrine of Protagoras, which assumes homo mensura, (note 6) that is, man is the measure of all things. Biblically, God, the Creator, is the measure of all things. Because of this ubiquitously accepted false doctrine of Protagoras, however, empirical researchers wasted financial and temporal resources only to discover that the truth of special revelation (Scripture) is confirmed by general revelation (creation). To assume that man is the measure of creation is a lie, which leads to deception. And deception has a financial cost. In a created universe, the Creator is the only true reference point for reality and the only basis for efficient living.
Biblically, the field of moral epistemology is the study of the impact of the depravity of man on how man makes choices. Those who do not embrace a biblical worldview might be surprised by the empirical data revealing that human decisions are primarily made emotionally. But for those with a biblical worldview, it is not surprising; moral decisions reflect the patterns found in the fall of man recorded in Genesis 3. Man, in his natural fallen state without Christ, has limited ability to make wise decisions—decisions based on sound reasoning. To break free from this pattern is indeed impossible for man, which is why the only real freedom from the consequences of the fall of man is found in Christ. (note 7)
In man’s fallen state, the mind justifies what the heart has chosen. Therefore only in Christ can people be freed enough from the consequences of sin to learn to more fully make decisions based on sound reasoning.
1. “Researchers Seek Roots of Morality in Biology, with Intriguing Results” by Sharon Begley, Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2004, page B1.
2. “The Crazy Logic of a Successful Sale” by Michelle Nichols, BusinessWeek Online, June 4, 2004.
3. 1 Timothy 2:14.
4. Ibid.
5. Genesis 1:24.
6. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homo%20mensura.
7. Galatians 5:1. |
.png)