A New Direction

Motivation and perception are two of the many unquantifiable factors that thwart claims by the behavioral sciences to be true sciences. For as much progress has been made in better understanding these areas of human behavior, what remains unknown is vastly greater. Because psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc, want so desperately to be recognized as empirical, the mainstream schools of thought have all but rejected the role of theology in trying to explain why people do what they do. As I’ve said repeatedly, this is because a profound confusion between the differences of theology and religion is commonplace. I’m not real sure why my lunch hour ramblings are in this vein today, but it may have something to do with my belief that as this planet’s population continues to grow exponentially we are ultimately going to have to give some serious thought to what makes us tick—to what makes us who we are and do what we do. I’ve long been fascinated by Kohlberg’s research on moral development, and while he could not afford to impugn his scientific credibility by alluding to theology, I have to guess that he understood well the high degree of correlation between the two. An atheistic perception (worldview) is going to motivate differently than a theistic one, just as the motivation of a starving person is going differ from that of someone who is well fed. Religion is once again a campaign issue for aspiring presidential candidates. Why don’t we take things in a new direction by questioning how their theology influences their view of the world and their motives?