Episode 12
The Perils of Assumption: Correlation vs. Causation in Theology
The "Correlation / Causation Fallacy" represents a critical concept that warrants our careful consideration, particularly in the context of our theological reflections. Within this episode, Joshua Noel elucidates the intricacies of this fallacy, emphasizing that the mere existence of a correlation between two phenomena does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. He offers pertinent examples, such as the misconceptions surrounding political events and their purported causal relationships, to illustrate how such fallacies can distort our understanding of faith and logic. By examining these correlations critically, we are encouraged to refine our theological inquiries and avoid the pitfalls of simplistic reasoning. Ultimately, this discourse aims to empower us to engage with our beliefs more thoughtfully, fostering a deeper and more nuanced understanding of our faith.
The episode provides a thorough examination of the correlation/causation fallacy, particularly how it can distort theological understanding and practice. Joshua Noel articulates the critical importance of distinguishing between correlation and causation, illustrating the dangers of conflating the two through a variety of contemporary examples. He discusses the ramifications of this fallacy in both societal and theological contexts, such as the tendency to attribute social phenomena to direct causes based solely on observed correlations. By analyzing instances from popular culture and current events, Noel encourages listeners to recognize the limitations of their reasoning and to be vigilant against oversimplified conclusions that may arise from a superficial understanding of correlation. He argues for a more nuanced approach to faith that acknowledges the complexities of belief and the historical and cultural factors that inform it, ultimately promoting a more robust and reflective theological practice.
Takeaways:
- In this episode, we explore the correlation-causation fallacy and its implications for faith.
- Understanding logical fallacies can profoundly influence our theological beliefs and practices.
- We must critically assess correlations to avoid misattributing causation in our faith journey.
- The prosperity gospel exemplifies how correlations can lead to erroneous theological conclusions.
- Causation should not be presumed from mere correlation, especially in matters of belief.
- We are challenged to examine our assumptions about faith, ensuring they are rooted in sound reasoning.
.
For the more curious minds who wanted to follow up on the article Joshua discussed from The Dispatch:
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/moving-beyond-guilt/
Transcript
Have you ever wondered if your faith can really be logical?
Speaker A:Well, if you're looking for a podcast with all the answers around faith and logic to help you defend your beliefs, then you've come exactly to the wrong place.
Speaker A:But if you're looking for a show that's going to help you ask better questions, challenge your beliefs, and engage with logicians and theologians from the last 2,000 years, this and to leave you struggling with what you believe about the divine at all, you have found the perfect show for you in that case, because this is a show designed to give you more questions than answers.
Speaker A:I am Joshua Nolan, and I'm just a dummy who loves God and theology and hopes to show my love for God by studying, thinking deeply about topics that people smarter than me have been thinking about for thousands of years.
Speaker A:Now, today, we're looking at the correlation causation fallacy.
Speaker A:We're continuing, finally, our series looking at logical fallacies and how they impact our faith or how we think about theology.
Speaker A:And this fallacy, what it is, it's the fallacy of assuming that because two things are correlated, that one causes the other.
Speaker A:So an example that most of us might be familiar with is when someone says so and so and so and Batman haven't been in the same room.
Speaker A:How do you tell me they're not Batman?
Speaker A:You've never seen me and Batman in the same room.
Speaker A:I must be Batman.
Speaker A:And, you know, it's used as a joke, but that's what the fallacy is.
Speaker A:And it's something that we honestly, we do a lot.
Speaker A:There are several examples of this fallacy throughout our modern culture today that are worth thinking about.
Speaker A:How are we thinking incorrectly about life in general as well as theology?
Speaker A:So some examples, one's going to be flat earth, you know, throughout the Bible, throughout different things.
Speaker A:You see, like, you look, it doesn't look like the earth surrounds or must be flat, or, you know, like, you see the sun come up one way, come down the other, so the earth must be flat.
Speaker A:And earth, you know, sun's just kind of going back and forth.
Speaker A:That's what people thought for a long time based off that correlation.
Speaker A:But as we studied it, we realized that that correlation is not proof that that's what's happening.
Speaker A:We know that the earth is actually round, and we just misunderstood the evidence that we saw.
Speaker A:So a correlation doesn't necessarily make a causation.
Speaker A:That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider a correlation or think about why is this correlation happening.
Speaker A:But we can't use it as the only Proof of what we believe.
Speaker A:For those who are nerds like me, you might think of like WandaVision, the show WandaVision, when it first came out, we kept seeing little clues of things here in the or, little hints here and there.
Speaker A:And we're like, they're suggesting Mephisto.
Speaker A:And then we took that little reference that was honestly just like nerd candy.
Speaker A:It was like, okay, so that's proof then that the whole thing, the bad guy behind the show is going to be Mephisto.
Speaker A:And it's like, we honestly, we make fun of it now because people did that for several different shows when really Mephisto could have done it, but so could a number of other things.
Speaker A:It turned out the story went a different direction, but we took those little references, we saw that correlation.
Speaker A:We said, this must be what's happening.
Speaker A:People did that when Joe Biden was in office.
Speaker A:You know, there was all kinds of other reasons that gas prices could have gone up.
Speaker A:But what did people do?
Speaker A:They blamed Joe Biden, said, look, gas prices went up.
Speaker A:He's the president.
Speaker A:Thus he did it.
Speaker A:When in reality, we actually can look at the causes we see had a lot to do with COVID We had a lot to do with different transportations and things happening, even things from previous administrations.
Speaker A:But people in America still wanted to blame Joe Biden said, oh, look, grass racing went up.
Speaker A:He was in office.
Speaker A:That's our correlation and we're gonna use that as proof.
Speaker A:Now we're seeing the same thing with egg prices.
Speaker A:They going up, but they've gone up even further since Donald Trump went in office.
Speaker A:And people are saying, oh, look, this is his fault.
Speaker A:Now, I think there are plenty of things that have gone wrong because of him.
Speaker A:I'm not getting them on, not letting him buy with stuff.
Speaker A:But I also think we can look at how egg prices were going up and how they were already going to go up anyway because of things going on with like bird flu and et cetera.
Speaker A:I think he exasperated the situation, but I don't think it's right to say he is the exact cause why egg prices are up.
Speaker A:That's a correlation that we tend to want to make a causation rather than looking at why stuff actually happening.
Speaker A:We just see that correlation and say, that's it, that's the proof.
Speaker A:But that's not how the world works.
Speaker A:Another one that's really interesting.
Speaker A:We'll see.
Speaker A:Like church and politics.
Speaker A:That's a lot of things we'll see.
Speaker A:Well, the church did this and that's why these people are in Power or these people are doing this because of the church.
Speaker A:We see a lot of correlations there.
Speaker A:One of the things that's really interesting, an article I read recently by Michael Renaud and Paul D.
Speaker A:Miller on the Dispatch, they wrote a confessing church for America's Weimar moment.
Speaker A:And what was interesting about this, so, so many people, especially people who are in more progressive Christian camps, what they're looking at now is all the things that Hitler and Trump have in common.
Speaker A:We see these correlations.
Speaker A:We see how the church is behind Donald Trump just like the church is behind Hitler.
Speaker A:We're making these correlations saying, okay, so we're in our World War II moment.
Speaker A:But what this article suggests is, what if instead we're in the moment before we can still do something about it, rather than saying, we've already lost, this has already happened.
Speaker A:What if we look at it as the moment before and they go through kind of the history of what was it that ca.
Speaker A:That polarization between the fascist and the communist in German political arena?
Speaker A:What caused that polarization and what caused it to be?
Speaker A:People had to choose one terrible thing or the other, and so they chose the terrible thing that was Hitler instead of the other terrible thing.
Speaker A:And if you actually study history after Hitler's demise, they chose the other terrible thing, and it just made Germany worse.
Speaker A:And what we're doing is we're already polarized and we're leaning into the polarization by making this correlation that Donald Trump is like Hitler, as opposed to saying, what if we're in that moment right before and we can choose to not be polarized and make it two terrible decisions?
Speaker A:What if there's another way through this, as opposed to just taking one correlation, saying that's proof of what's happening and we have to deal with it.
Speaker A:Again, I do think there are a lot of correlations between Donald Trump and Hitler.
Speaker A:I think he's an evil man.
Speaker A:But I also think that there might be some truth to not writing things off, because we see this correlation, but rather looking at the causation of what happened to Germany and seeing if we can keep that same cause from happening here so that we don't continue to have this correlation in America to what happened in World War II Germany.
Speaker A:So it's a really interesting article.
Speaker A:I'll try to link it down below so you guys can check it out.
Speaker A:But that's a prime example of currently how the church is failing because we don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.
Speaker A:Looking at some more practical theology, Prosperity Gospel is Something that's commonly used throughout different kinds of churches where we say, you know, if God loved you, he bless you, and you'll have riches and riches and riches.
Speaker A:And they might take specific little Bible verses here, right?
Speaker A:Like God is great, God is all power, and if you love God, he blesses you.
Speaker A:Look at King David, look at King Solomon, look at this.
Speaker A:They might take little people here and there throughout the Bible and they build a correlation and they say, God is good and great and he loves you, so he would want good and great things for you.
Speaker A:And that makes sense.
Speaker A:So we see this correlation, we take it as proof, but we don't look at the full scripture.
Speaker A:In Ecclesiastes, the Bible clearly states that it rains on the just and unjust alike, that God blesses the good and the evil, that there are some things that are going to be good things happening to bad people.
Speaker A:And if you look at Jeremiah, bad things happen to good people.
Speaker A:Jeremiah lived in depression most of his life.
Speaker A:He did exactly what God wanted him to and got punished for it regularly.
Speaker A:So this prosperity gospel doesn't see the full picture of the gospel, doesn't see the full picture of the Bible and the true gospel, but rather looks at a few different instances what they think about God and what kind of life they want.
Speaker A:And they use that correlation to build a completely different doctrine that isn't in the Bible at all.
Speaker A:That's actually completely antithetical to the true gospel.
Speaker A:We look at God in the church, a lot of people have been hurt by the church.
Speaker A:First off, let me say I don't want to belittle any trauma that happened from church or anything like that, but what happens is a lot of people have been hurt from the church.
Speaker A:And what will often be the case is because certain people said something to them, or a pastor mistreated them or, you know, whatever, they turn their back on the entire faith, God included.
Speaker A:Because they say, oh, this is what God's like, this is what his people like.
Speaker A:I want nothing to do with them.
Speaker A:But the truth is, all of us, including myself, who worship God could be behaving a certain way.
Speaker A:And God might not be like that at all.
Speaker A:We might just all be wrong about God.
Speaker A:But there is a certain correlation between God and his people in the church.
Speaker A:And it makes sense.
Speaker A:Like, I'm not belittling people for making that correlation, but I will say that I don't think it's completely reasonable to think just because people who use God's name act a certain way, that that is how God is Because if nothing else, we can find churches that affirm homosexuality, that are loving people, that are helping the poor in the community, that are doing a bunch of good stuff.
Speaker A:And we can find churches are, you know, going against the marginalized, calling ICE on immigrants, you know, who are hurting their community, not doing for anything and taking money from people and you know, doing terrible stuff behind the scenes pastors who are doing sexual abuse.
Speaker A:We see both of those kinds of churches, as well as everything in between, all over the place.
Speaker A:And God can't be like all of that.
Speaker A:So it's not.
Speaker A:There is no way to make that correlation properly.
Speaker A:Like, logically, God cannot both be that church that's loving people helping the community as well as the church that's deceiving people, taking their money and having terrible stuff happen behind the scenes of abuse and sexual misconduct.
Speaker A:God can't be like both of those things.
Speaker A:So logically, I don't think we can look at God's people and say that correlates to who God must be.
Speaker A:Rather, we have to say there's some other cause, maybe the people, even if God's not real God, Israel, whatever, that it doesn't seem like God's people using God's name causes them to behave any certain way.
Speaker A:Rather, we have to say there's some other cause that's leading to these kind of behaviors, to this kind of misconduct, to this kind of stuff happening, or another church that's leading them to want to affirm homosexuality or this or that.
Speaker A:It's not necessarily directly caused by God.
Speaker A:It might be, it might not be.
Speaker A:But because that correlation can't be proof when there's so many different kind of churches using God's the same Bible, the same God, we have to assume that there's some other cause behind that other than just God.
Speaker A:As in every instance, maybe one instance, everyone's completely right and they got their word directly from God.
Speaker A:But all the other instances, the cause has to be something else.
Speaker A:Now, again, people who are hurt by church and don't want to go back to church and don't want to believe in God because of the pain caused to them, lean into your trauma, find healing, get a psychiatrist, all that good stuff.
Speaker A:I'm not trying to belittle what happened to you.
Speaker A:What I am trying to say is that we logically can't say anything about God based solely off of people who use his name and claim him as their own.
Speaker A:Also, we're going to look at atonement theories.
Speaker A:There's all kinds of different atonement Theories, right?
Speaker A:Of like, maybe Jesus, death on the cross.
Speaker A:He stepped in where I was guilty and sinned.
Speaker A:He stepped in, took my guilt, and got punished from God because God has to punish sin, and he paid the price on the cross, and that's where I get salvation.
Speaker A:We also, you know, have theories of like, Christus Victor or something.
Speaker A:I'm probably closer to myself, where Jesus died so that he could experience death, defeat hell in the grave, rise again, and we can live in that victory over hell in the grave.
Speaker A:You even have a scapegoat theory of, well, you know, everybody wants to blame something or somebody.
Speaker A:And, you know, in the Old Testament, there was a sacrifice of the scapegoat where we put our sins on it and we sent it away.
Speaker A:And that's what Jesus was.
Speaker A:We were putting all of our sins on him so he could send it somewhere else.
Speaker A:He was the ultimate scapegoat.
Speaker A:That's what atonement looks like.
Speaker A:I think we have to embrace some uncertainty.
Speaker A:I don't think there's any clear instance, especially when you look through a lot of the times.
Speaker A:Christus Victor was really popular in the church.
Speaker A:Winning.
Speaker A:We lived in a world where it was all about conquering and winning battles.
Speaker A:Penal, substitutionary atonement.
Speaker A:That whole God had to punish something.
Speaker A:That's really popular in a world without the battles, but where we maybe feel bad ourselves.
Speaker A:And we live in a more existential crisis kind of world now.
Speaker A:So that tends to be more popular.
Speaker A:The Ransom theory, when we gave more of this dualism, the worldwide dualism was more popular.
Speaker A:Suddenly the Ransom theory was more popular back then.
Speaker A:And you can look at different atonement theories being popular in different times where different values are stressed, which really means that most of the atonement theories that we hold to tend to be a product of our time, which doesn't take away how true they may or may not be.
Speaker A:But we have to see that correlation and realize that there might be another cause other than simply the Bible that leads us to believe some of these.
Speaker A:And maybe we need to be weary about doing a little bit of a logical fallacy with that.
Speaker A:I think we need to embrace a little bit of uncertainty with how atonement works, because I don't think the Bible is really clear.
Speaker A:I think if different times and cultures come up with different ideas on how it works, then I don't think that's a good reason to believe something.
Speaker A:There are other logical reasons, other things behind it.
Speaker A:But I think we have to be really careful when we look at what we believe.
Speaker A:With atonement theories and what it says about God, we have to be really careful that we're not falling into this kind of correlation of how we think about the world in our own culture and how that might be causing us to believe different at home theories.
Speaker A:In biblical theology, this happens a lot, and it's so irritating.
Speaker A:One of the things that I grew up with, I grew up in the Pentecostal Church.
Speaker A:I grew up with a lot of people in the churches.
Speaker A:I was raised in believing that there's two baptisms.
Speaker A:You have the water baptism when you're saved, you get baptized in water, and then later you might be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Speaker A:So that would be called baptizing the Holy Spirit.
Speaker A:And when that happens, the that church believed that you shouldn't have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
Speaker A:As soon as you're baptized that second time in the Holy Spirit, boom, you should speak in tongues.
Speaker A:Maybe it's not your forever gift, but that first time it should be happening.
Speaker A: st Corinthians: Speaker A:Paul pretty much blatantly says not everyone's going to speak in tongues, but so why do people still hold to this doctrine that you will initially when you're baptized in the Holy Spirit?
Speaker A:Also, there's nothing in the Bible that talks about two different baptisms.
Speaker A:We're baptized in water and spirit at once.
Speaker A:You know, we're baptized in salvation one time.
Speaker A:Now there is room for debate.
Speaker A:I actually do believe in this two baptism, but I don't think it directly comes from the Bible.
Speaker A:I think we have to think through other reasons why we believe that.
Speaker A:The reason that a lot of people come to this initial speaking in tongues thing though, is because of a correlation, causation, logical fallacy.
Speaker A:I'm just going to have to call that out.
Speaker A:It is what it is.
Speaker A:What the belief is, is every time when you read the Book of Acts that someone's laid hands on and they're baptized in the Holy Spirit, if the Bible says they're baptized in the Holy Spirit, they're speaking in tongues.
Speaker A:It does happen every time in the Book of Acts.
Speaker A:So they say.
Speaker A:Since it happens every time in this book, that must mean that it's going to happen every time forever.
Speaker A:But since there's other scripture that suggests that not everyone will speak in tongues, I think finding this one correlation in the Book of Acts of how it tends to happen isn't very good proof that it will always happen that way.
Speaker A:That's just a logical fallacy of we're taking that correlation as a causation, saying this is how it always works when there is no real logical reason to believe that that would be the case, at least not from the Bible.
Speaker A:If we're looking at biblical theology, predestination arguments tend to do pretty similar things.
Speaker A:We're seeing how God knows the future.
Speaker A:God is all knowing.
Speaker A:God is all powerful, so that means he must know our future.
Speaker A:And if he's all powerful, he could do something about it, which means he's already chose where you're going to go.
Speaker A:Because he knows the future, he could have done something about it.
Speaker A:He's not, so he must have chose where you're going to go.
Speaker A:So it's a correlation.
Speaker A:We're taking some stuff that we know about God, saying that, so this is the only thing that makes sense to us.
Speaker A:But really, just because your imagination is so limited, that doesn't mean that's the only way it could work.
Speaker A:But a lot of our precination arguments are based on that.
Speaker A:Similarly on the other side, so that would be kind of like the Calvinist theology side.
Speaker A:What you'll see is Armenians.
Speaker A:So the other side of that kind of free will idea what they'll say God loves us perfectly, which means he has to be in an open relationship with us.
Speaker A:And he can't be in a relationship with us truly if our future is already set.
Speaker A:So our future must not be set.
Speaker A:So they'll deny predestination based on all this correlation of what they believe it means to have free will and be in a relationship with God.
Speaker A:But a lot of this is based on assumptions and correlations and at the end of the day they're our best guesses.
Speaker A:So I think we need to be a little bit more humble because I think the Bible has some strong arguments for both sides that I don't think allows us to make a clear biblical case of one way or the other.
Speaker A:When we look at eschatology and modern prophecies, we see a lot of the same thing where it's like, oh look, I saw in the Book of Revelation it says, or Daniel, it says something about grasshoppers.
Speaker A:So that must mean helicopters because today there's helicopters out and we're in the end times and it's like we're taking this correlation with like crazy things.
Speaker A:Or you'll see like something happened in Russia and the Russians are bad now.
Speaker A:And we see in the Bible where it talks about a leader coming from the east, so that must be Putin and it's like, okay, but it could happen anytime.
Speaker A:It could have already happened.
Speaker A:It could be in the future sometime.
Speaker A:So we take these correlations of things that are said here and there, and we just take phrases out and we apply it to our world because there's some kind of correlation and say, this must be the end times.
Speaker A:And I don't think that's right either.
Speaker A:That's not what the Bible's meant to do.
Speaker A:In fact, if you look at how prophecies and especially apocalyptic literature was written in biblical times, it's to tell you something about the truth right now.
Speaker A:So using these symbolic language and finding correlation in our world and then trying to predict the future, that's not ever been what it was about.
Speaker A:What it's supposed to be about is seeing the correlation to the world right now and then asking, so what does that mean I should do?
Speaker A:Supposed to change you, not tell you something about the future with some kind of hidden clues within the correlations.
Speaker A:We have to be careful of these logical fallacies in all of our theology.
Speaker A:So next I want to take a second to think about a little bit of systematic theology as well.
Speaker A:So when we look specifically at original sin, a lot of times when you hear pastors talk about original sin, so what the doctrine is is that everyone is born in sin because Adam sin.
Speaker A:Now everyone is born in sin.
Speaker A:They take some different verses in Romans, Corinthians where it says, just as all are dead in Adam, we can be made alive in Christ.
Speaker A:So everyone's dead in sin, but we can turn to Jesus and be made alive again.
Speaker A:And this doctrine, I don't think it ever got to the Eastern church, but it followed through Catholicism into Protestant, all of the Western churches, basically.
Speaker A:And what it is is this idea that since all sinned, we all need Christ and what people will use to preach.
Speaker A:I don't want to say anything about how true it may or may not be.
Speaker A:There's a lot of Bible behind it.
Speaker A:There's a lot of really good church history and tradition and fathers who are smarter than me and theologians smarter than me have thought about this.
Speaker A:I'm not sure I'm fully on board on original sin, but I will say so many smarter people, I mean, have affirmed it.
Speaker A:It's been affirmed in the church, and I think maybe if it is true, we need to rethink what it we mean by it.
Speaker A:But I'm gonna leave it alone for now.
Speaker A:Instead, what I want to say is one of the arguments that we should not be using with this a lot of times pastors in the pulpit when they talk about original sin, they'd be like, we all, we know everyone's a born evil and they'll point to like a child and you know, a child always wants to take a cookie out of the cookie jar.
Speaker A:They want to do this kind of thing.
Speaker A:And that's using correlation as proof.
Speaker A:So just because we might know kids who misbehave or lie or send them a cookie doesn't mean that every kid ever has done that.
Speaker A:And that doesn't mean that they started off sinful.
Speaker A:Maybe it's your fault that they've become cookie stealers or, you know, whatever insert here example.
Speaker A:Maybe it's the fault of society.
Speaker A:Maybe in a perfect society that kid wouldn't have done those things.
Speaker A:So I just don't think it's right to use that correlation as proof.
Speaker A:So you want to use other things for original sin?
Speaker A:Let's do it.
Speaker A:But I don't think it's right to use that example and say this is proof that original sin is accurate because that is equating correlation to causation, which again, that is the logical fallacy that we're talking about.
Speaker A:We don't want to be guilty of logical fallacies, especially in our systematic theology.
Speaker A:Historical theology also is going to play a big part here.
Speaker A:We know in the Inquisition a lot of this was the church basically just didn't like how Muslim people were doing things in different areas.
Speaker A:We thought that they were guilty of evil because evil was happening in certain areas.
Speaker A:And so the church just murdered people that justified their actions based on some correlation without any real proof of what was happening within these people groups.
Speaker A:And we can't act like we're better than that.
Speaker A:In September 11, there was Muslim terrorists in America that flew planes into our trade empire.
Speaker A:All the buildings.
Speaker A:After September 11, a lot of people now think every time we think Muslim, we think terrorist.
Speaker A:There's this correlation.
Speaker A:Rather than seeing that that was a small group, a small part of the Islamic faith that thinks that's okay.
Speaker A:And most Islamic people are actually about peace and love, gentleness.
Speaker A:Most Muslims actually believe in Jesus, but rather they don't believe him as Savior, but they believe him as someone important as a prophet, and they follow his teachings.
Speaker A:That I think.
Speaker A:But rather what we see is because of the actions of a few.
Speaker A:We correlate all Muslim people as this.
Speaker A:In fact, most racist ideas or bigotry is actually from some form of correlation causation, that logical fallacy.
Speaker A:You know, when you see construction workers sitting by the side of the road.
Speaker A:Maybe you saw that in some groups and you're using that correlation to say that all construction workers must be like this.
Speaker A:So this is how a lot of prejudice reform is, through this specific logical fallacy that's incredibly dangerous.
Speaker A:The church has done this in a number of ways.
Speaker A:The most scarring for me personally, the thing that I am most saddened by is how the church is worked with slavery.
Speaker A:There's a Bible verse that talks about the descendants of Cain and how they're going to be marked so that they'll be darker or something.
Speaker A:So the church took some kind of vague reference in the Bible to the descendants of Cain being marked and said that, oh, it's just people of color, people from Africa, based on this one thing of which direction they went after something.
Speaker A:And then they use that to justify making black people slaves because they are part of Cain's lineage.
Speaker A:And then they use different verses in the New Testament says how you should treat your slaves and say, so everything's justified, rather than seeing slavery is never upheld as something we should be doing, but if we do, here's the less evil way of doing it.
Speaker A:And also, slavery meant something different in the New Testament, but that's besides the point.
Speaker A:And then also using this random verse in Cain's descendants, that was never the point.
Speaker A:Christ came to redeem all people, not all people except for the descendants of Cain, that was never in there.
Speaker A:So even if you could somehow prove that Cain's descendants were African people, that's still just evil beyond reason.
Speaker A:So this causation correlation thing led to some huge racist justification of racist peoples as well as the justification of slavery.
Speaker A:And it's just, it's heartbreaking.
Speaker A:And the church continues to fall for the same logical fallacy.
Speaker A:Thomas Aquinas, he does something similar when it comes to angels original sinned, his idea of just war.
Speaker A:A lot of these.
Speaker A:What I think is I just don't like Aquinas.
Speaker A:His bad theology was based on this correlation causation thing.
Speaker A:You know, he said, okay, well we know this is true, so that must make this true of angels.
Speaker A:There's a lot of guesswork, a lot of, okay, so this correlation means this when it comes to original sin, a lot of the problems I brought up before, that's how he came to his views on that doctrine.
Speaker A:Just war.
Speaker A:He's saying, okay, so in these areas, I like this outcome, and since I like that outcome, that must mean that war is justified.
Speaker A:In this instance, I use these, a lot of correlations to build.
Speaker A:Okay, so this is when war is good and when it's not, rather than saying, hey, look, the Bible says killing is bad, but instead we use these correlations to form bad doctrines.
Speaker A:We use it to create prejudice, to be racist, to be bigots.
Speaker A:And it still happens today.
Speaker A: declared Jainism a heresy in: Speaker A:What Jainism was was this belief that it's impossible to avoid sin, that predestination is absolutely accurate in both ways.
Speaker A:God already predestined us either to heaven or hell, and that Christ only died for some people.
Speaker A:That's the part that made it heresy.
Speaker A:Christ only died for some people, but how did they get there?
Speaker A:Well, they thought that it's impossible and all have sinned, so that must mean we can't not sin.
Speaker A:So they took the one verse and we're kind of building a correlation, saying, so this is what we think this means.
Speaker A:It's not even a correlation.
Speaker A:That's just one interpretation of what that could mean.
Speaker A:Then they said, okay, so if that's sin, if we're all going to sin, God knows everything.
Speaker A:He knows the future.
Speaker A:So they said that must mean we are already predestined to heaven or hell, because God could have chosen to let us all go to heaven, so we're predestined to one or the other.
Speaker A:Then they took it even further.
Speaker A:This is what made it a heresy, was that they said, well, in that case, it doesn't make sense that Christ died for people that were already predestined to go to hell.
Speaker A:So Christ must have only died for those predestined to go to heaven.
Speaker A:That's a heresy because the Bible clearly says Christ died for all.
Speaker A:God died for us all, he resurrected for all, might have victory.
Speaker A:So it doesn't mean you have to believe in universalism.
Speaker A:It doesn't mean you can't believe in predestination.
Speaker A:But it does mean you can't use this correlation between your set of beliefs here about predestination to then imply that that must mean Jesus only died for some people, because that's just not what the Bible says.
Speaker A:It's not what Jesus said.
Speaker A:It's not what God's about.
Speaker A:God loves all.
Speaker A:God loved the whole world, that he sent his only begotten Son, not God, so loved those people, he chose to go to heaven one day.
Speaker A:That's what makes it a heresy.
Speaker A:And that's what, again, it makes this correlation, causation, logical fallacy, just so dangerous.
Speaker A:It might be the most dangerous one we've spoken of yet.
Speaker A:And we're not going to spend as much time on it as some of the others because I think it's just so clear why this is dangerous and something we need to avoid.
Speaker A:So I hope these examples have been helpful and can lead us away from some of this dangerous thought.
Speaker A:From prejudice, from racism, from bad doctrines, from Thomas Aquinas.
Speaker A:Maybe understanding correlation causation can lead us away from some of these things that I think have plagued the church for a little bit too long, in my opinion.
Speaker A:You guys know we always like to end this show with three takeaway questions.
Speaker A:Not applications, not actions, but questions to continue to ponder, to continue to struggle with as dummies who don't know everything.
Speaker A:So today's three takeaway questions are based on this correlation causation fallacy.
Speaker A:1.
Speaker A:What have I blamed other people groups for because of a false correlation or causation equivalence?
Speaker A:Maybe you're not racist, but maybe there is a people group, people who work in a restaurant, people who go to this kind of church, people who vote this kind of way that you've made an assumption based on the correlation and you've been mistreating people, you've been prejudiced because of a false correlation.
Speaker A:Causation equivalence, this logical fallacy, what evil might it have led you to do?
Speaker A:What assumptions have I made about my faith personally because of a correlation that I haven't thought through?
Speaker A:You know, I don't think most of us are guilty of Jainism.
Speaker A:Most of us probably aren't thinking, oh, Christ only died for some.
Speaker A:But there probably is something in your beliefs that you haven't fully thought through.
Speaker A:You just assume because of a correlation that you might have been taught in church or something?
Speaker A:3.
Speaker A:What was the cause of Jesus's sinless life?
Speaker A:Jesus lived without sin.
Speaker A:Was it because his divine nature?
Speaker A:Because he was God himself?
Speaker A:Was it because he just chose not to sin?
Speaker A:Or is it because of his personhood of who he is by nature he couldn't have sinned?
Speaker A:Is it because of his God nature?
Speaker A:Because of his personhood in himself, because of his choices?
Speaker A:What was Jesus cause?
Speaker A:What caused Jesus to live a sinless life?
Speaker A:And how do you get there without just making a correlation of always God?
Speaker A:So it must have happened.
Speaker A:Think it through.
Speaker A:What was truly the cause that he was able to do that?
Speaker A:Because without that we don't have the resurrection, we don't have victory in Christ without the sinless life we have to think through what caused it, not just assume any correlations and run with it.
Speaker A:So this will help you think through theology a little bit stronger, a little bit more.
Speaker A:Maybe just meditate and things to God better.
Speaker A:So again, our three takeaway questions today.
Speaker A:What have I blamed other people for groups for because of false correlation causation equivalence?
Speaker A:Number two, what assumptions have I made about my faith because of a correlation that I haven't thought through?
Speaker A:Number three, what was the cause of Jesus's sinless life?
Speaker A:Guys, I hope this has been helpful.
Speaker A:And I hope you're just as confused as I am that you're inspired to learn more from the Church's past, challenge your own beliefs and reject heresies that might be based on false fallacies like the Jainism fallacy going forward in your own faith journeys.
Speaker A:Thank you all so much for joining this dummy on my journey to learn more about God and to love him better.
Speaker A:I hope this has encouraged you to worship God in your own thinking and of course, to keep on struggling till next time.
