We might agree with Aristotle that human beings are complex, political animals , but if we also agree that humans innately possess the Imago Dei, what are we to make of the stuff given to us–raw and “unplugged”–by nature? What of our biological drives, motives, and desires? Evolutionary psychology tells us that: (1) these things are there all for the sake of reproductive advantage; and (2) that our brain became more sophisticated and built on top of more “primitive” reptilian and then mammalian neural architecture. Without taking cares to assume an moral compass from without (e.g. from divine revelation), some evolutionary psychologists/neuroscientists jump off the deep end by overly praising what’s within, what’s given. Take this excerpt about Morten Kringelbach:

In the day-to-day routine of life, we may feel we are continually fighting our desires for what we really want.   But doing so, [Kringelbach] argues, is irrational and a huge waste of energy and resources, for it is pleasure and desire that underlie all our decisions and actions, and, therefore, our experiences. [Read full article here]

Nearly everyone will agree that our decision-making is largely driven by impulse and desire, but that doesn’t mean that what we take as given in our JDM to be sufficient to make prescriptions. While flirting with hedonism–via the back door of psychology–sheds light on our complex animal+Imago Dei nature, there is the danger of “preaching” hedonism and feeling justified in doing so on account of supporting empirical claims. I think the more interesting question is not what our desires are and what they look like, but rather to what/whom do they tend toward, when, and why?

And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. -Matthew 24:12

Children, it is the last hour. -1 John 2:18

in the psychology of thinking (PSY310) this week, prof johnson-laird talked about magical thinking and how this type of reasoning has undergirded much of western medicine and science at large. of course, hardcore empiricists will scoff at this claim, but the truth of the matter is no matter what philosophical-cultural background humans emerge from, there is always a desire to form linkages between symbols and reality–put in other words, “symbolic control.”

western scientism, while extremely familiar to us and seemingly effective when put into practice, is still just another type of magical thinking. even with naturalistic accounts, we try to maintain symbolic control to get a better handle on those things that are out of our control (e.g. cancer, human mortality). this is sobering because even if scientists practice the scientific method, biases (conscious or unconscious) can lead to invalid or erroneous conclusions. for example, even with nice-looking data, a scientist might wrongly claim causation just to suit his or her deep-seated desire to determine causal links between the variables at hand.

at the end of day, we need to be wary about “scientific” theories and models (i.e. magical thinking is always at work at some level). this is a great example of psychology’s troubled past in trying to account for the causes behind mental illness, in this case autism.