Constructivism

From Perception to Ascription

If scientific findings deprive the theological statements of faith of a council of the basis from which they were derived, then the credibility of dogmas and also the infallibility of the Church and the Pope are at stake here. And it is worth taking a closer look here. What is it all about? It’s actually about the basic problem of cognition, which pervades almost all of philosophy to this day, from Plato’s allegory of the cave to constructivism, which in my opinion provides a very conclusive answer to how we recognize something.

Most people will have recognized the Mona Lisa when looking at the picture in the article, but why? Because we have already seen the original picture and our brain offers us a way of recognizing it, always depending on our previous experience or knowledge.

An object reflects light, which is picked up by our eyes. This impulse is transmitted via the optic nerves to the brain, where it is converted into a meaningful image based on previous experience. We can compare our brain to the graphics card of a computer. The problem is that this transmission path and the reconstruction of the image by the brain can also result in changes to the original. Another example will illustrate this:

„Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.“[1]

It’s gibberish, and yet our brain copes with it and forms a complete sentence out of it – a new creation out of the confusion. So our brain copes with little and even fragmentary information by trying to make sense of what it perceives. If this text were written in a language unknown to us, we would have no chance of understanding or interpreting it. Our previous experiences – in this case language – are therefore decisive for our interpretation of reality or for our construct. The brain therefore works self-referentially and everything that can be known about external reality is a new creation, a construct of the observer. How and as what we recognize something is therefore largely determined from within. It is only through the brain’s immense capacity for complexity that meaning and reality, and therefore our ego, are created. This constructive activity of the brain is confirmed by numerous neurobiological studies, and overall this supports the theory of constructivism.

“Cognition is – if it succeeds – a reflection of reality. The ideal of cognition is “objectivity”, i.e. different observers examining the same object should arrive at the same results because their statements are determined by the properties of the object and not by the procedure of observation or the characteristics of the observer.”[2]

The Church now claims to be able, or even obliged, to proclaim dogmas about God and faith with ultimate authority through scripture, tradition and experience. It claims to do so in order to give the faithful a secure orientation. But God is not easy for people to observe, which is why statements about God can never be objective, because we can never “get to grips” with God or “understand” him. All our constructs break against God. The injunction: “You should not form an image of God!”[3] can also be interpreted differently: “You cannot form an image of God!”

In the church, many people have had subjective experiences with God and have exchanged views on them and identified commonalities in their experiences. A person’s thinking is not a stand-alone event, it is always in a social context and in dialog. And so constructs of reality are also created collectively or concepts are assigned collectively. We find these insights or truths in the Holy Scriptures and testimonies and later also in beliefs, doctrines and dogmas. People are always dependent on and oriented towards community and want to belong to a community that gives them security. Community needs identity and common doctrines and dogmas create identity and a sense of belonging when everyone believes the same thing.

The expression of a person and also of a community can therefore only ever take place within their own or the community’s constructs, the respective current world experience. These constructs, such as the construct about Adam and Eve in our example, are therefore always the basis or the means by which a person can express something. This means that all statements – including those of the prophets and even Jesus – are always colored by constructivism. Because people can only recognize and express something within their own constructs. That is why the initial construct, the prevailing world view at a certain time, must always be taken into account when making a statement, if we are not just looking at old texts or doctrinal statements. If we want to grasp the direction of a statement, i.e. its purpose, as accurately as possible, we must also take the context of the statement into account. Because if the “truth” can only be recognized and named in the respective construct and the constructs change over the course of time, then the respective “truths” can also change.

To put it more concretely: Every statement – and with it every “truth” – has at least two components: the direction of the statement and the context of the statement, i.e. the inner construct from previous experience with which the statement is interpreted. Consequently, a truth is only ever true in the respective statement context. If the context changes, the truth can also change. To put it more pointedly: The supposed infallibility of the church and the magisterium is only valid in the context in which it is stated. In addition, every person has their own previous experiences and constructs with which they interpret the truths of faith that are presented to them and turn them into their own construct. This means that there will be as many interpretations of the church’s statements of faith as there are people. We cannot start from “The Truth”. There are as many truths as there are people. There are certainly many similarities in these many truths, especially when it comes to scientifically verifiable facts. However, the more transcendental concepts or beliefs are involved, the greater the differences between the respective “ideas”.

If our constructions of reality fit, i.e. prove themselves in reality, everything is OK. However, if they fail, they need to be reviewed and adapted. Knowledge – including that of theological truths – is therefore always an evolutionary adaptation process that ensures the survival and functioning of a system. Initially, all constructs are of equal value and have no claim to superiority. The resilience of a cognitive construct only becomes apparent in the debate. Since the beginning of the modern era, the church has been engaged in a debate with the reality of science, psychology and humanism that can currently be experienced, and it has not yet integrated these findings into its statements of faith.

Let us note:

1. We do not have direct access to reality, but construct our world anew each time, both as individuals and as a community. We can only ever perceive and communicate reality – including revelations – within the framework of our previous experiences and the resulting constructs.
2. In doing so, we interpret the circumstances by means of our constructs, which include personal and communal previous experiences, world views and values. And we try to arrive at a meaningful result.
3. Every person – including prophets and Jesus – can only ever express themselves within their constructs, whereby constructs can change if they can no longer be reconciled with reality.
4. All doctrinal statements of the Church must be examined with regard to the constructs behind them – their context of expression – and the direction in which they are expressed. As we have already seen with original sin.

Another example that can make this principle of knowledge clear:

The woman should be subordinate?

In ancient times, when the sower scattered the seed over the field, it was clear that the seed contained all the ingredients for the plant. The seed only needed the field or topsoil to sprout and grow. Everyone could see this, and it was of course very easy to transfer this pattern to men and women. Women were only seen as nurturing mothers who received and promoted growth. Only the man was important for reproduction and maintaining the lifeline – a construct that was generally accepted for a long time. And because of their physical superiority, men were able to enforce this view on women in the family, society and culture and assign them a subordinate role in society.

It was only when science was able to prove the origin of human life from egg and sperm cells with the aid of the microscope that the old construct of male superiority collapsed and human rights today proclaim the equal rights of men and women. Unfortunately, the church still insists on the old and now untenable construct that men are special because Jesus was a man and only appointed men as apostles. Even if Jesus had deliberately called only men, we would have to question the construct of his time and society on the basis of which he called only men. So if we remove the construct of patriarchy, all that remains is the full equality and full equivalence of men and women, as Paul already expresses it in Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[4] And who calls people to serve in the church – God! And according to today’s ideas, he is not bound to one gender, because God is all in all. We can see from all these examples that beliefs, customs and morals are always fed by the respective worldviews, experience and knowledge, i.e. our constructs. No statement about the truth without constructs! This means that every “truth” is always dependent on the respective constructs in time and place and people.

Constructivism and the Bible

When we deal with the Bible and speak of divinely inspired text, we must bear in mind that the divine is transcendent and cannot be described in our terms. The writers of the Bible nevertheless tried to put their experiences into writing, but they had nothing else at their disposal but the constructs they had internalized at the time.

This leaves only limited scope for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Social and personal circumstances – the constructs – have often enough obscured the fundamental intention of love and mercy. It is therefore important to ask about the direction of the text and not to stick to the letter.

Constructivism and the right doctrine

A predominant construct in the first centuries after Christ was logic and systematics in the wake of the then prevailing philosophy in the Roman Empire. Christian doctrine was also forced into a logical system. In principle, there is nothing wrong with logic and its application. However, when it comes to describing the divine, human logic fails. A different wisdom applies to the divine and the wisdom of the world cannot reach or describe it. In this context, Paul speaks of the wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God.

It becomes even more critical when there is a church split over questions of faith, for example. Instead of tolerating the other opinion and possibly recognizing it as an enrichment to one’s own point of view, this led to church splits. And there were numerous splits over the “right” truth. And all of them had at least a grain of truth in their doctrine. A different attitude prevailed in early Christianity. It was about recognizing God wherever he was already at work. Peter was asked to slaughter and eat what was unclean and unholy. God had declared it clean, thereby breaking down a prevailing construct in Jewish thinking: No contact with non-Jews! The decisive factor was that the centurion Cornelius was a God-fearing man who supported the poor. Peter tells him and his household about Jesus and his resurrection and they are all filled with the Holy Spirit. Peter draws the conclusion: “Truly, now I understand that God does not look at the person, but that he welcomes in every nation those who fear him and do what is right.”

How universal and how simple! By contrast, what a casuistry and doctrine we have built up. And anyone who disagrees with us is excluded. But isn’t there another way? Yes, Pope Francis proclaims this path of mercy. That is what is good for this world and for people. Mercy overcomes boundaries and constructs that separate us from one another.

[1] Schmitt et al. [2] Simon (2015), 10f [3] Ex 20,4 [4] Gal 2,28