sign in sign up
<<
Home , Schema (psychology), Worldview

Volume 46 Number 3 Article 2

March 2018

The Common Thread in Kuyper, Kuhn and Cognitive : Interpretive Frameworks

Daniel F. A. Hitchcock

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege

Part of the Commons, and the Cognitive Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation Hitchcock, Daniel F. A. (2018) "The Common Thread in Kuyper, Kuhn and Cognitive Psychology: Interpretive Frameworks," Pro Rege: Vol. 46: No. 3, 14 - 23. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol46/iss3/2

This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more , please contact [email protected]. The Common Thread in Kuyper, Kuhn and Cognitive Psychology: Interpretive Frameworks

guage, or . The that subjectivity influences the way we interpret the is not new; neither is the idea that subjective factors influence the meth- ods, discoveries, and applications of human col- lective efforts. Over the last half-century, the bastion of objective has been crumbling at its Enlightenment foundation. Fatal blows have come from insights in psychology and the phi- losophy of . Although modern positivis- tic science has been mortally wounded, I believe an integrative approach can be taken between a strong relativistic position on and an abso- by Daniel Hitchcock lutist one. The Christian as a le- gitimizes the assertion that there is a “real world” “We see and understand things not as they as well as the that we perceive it through are but as we are.” ~Anthony de Mello— interpretive lenses, which I will be calling “inter- Awareness (1990) pretive frameworks.” These frameworks can yield a plurality of views, including imperfect ones. Christian mystic Anthony de Mello illustrates The goal of this paper is to explore the con- today’s postmodern view of . He seems to flict between the relativistic and absolutist posi- say that truth and reality are autonomous, sub- tions on truth, using insights from cognitive psy- jective constructions in the eye of the beholder. chology, of science, and Christianity. Thus, Truth claims cannot be judged as true in First, I will highlight how subjectivity takes all contexts for all but are relative to some place at the level of the individual, as described frame of reference like personal , lan- by theory. Second, I will show that the same cognitive process lies at the heart of human Dr. Daniel F. A. Hitchcock is Associate Professor of social efforts via shared interpretive frameworks Psychology at the College of Arts and at Regent often called “.” And third, I will ad- University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. dress the glaring implication of such subjectiv-

14 Pro Rege—March 2018 ity. If individuals and groups interpret the world plain a variety of phenomena—especially in via their own subjective frameworks, the result is and . The , which is antithetical to objective ab- result has been a theory explaining that subjective solute truth that stands firm across all times and interpretive frameworks are used to see and under- contexts. I will argue that stand the world. Today we call this theory “sche- philosophy helps resolve the apparent conflict ma theory,” the name originating from Kant.3 based upon the biblical insight that the way we Over the last century, key European psycholo- see and understand real- gists, including Frederick ity stems ultimately from Bartlett and , the condition of our heart. Although modern positivistic have articulated and ap- Interpretive frameworks science has been mortally plied this idea. Bartlett con- are fundamental to human wounded, I believe an cluded that memory is a re- , and embracing integrative approach can construction of interaction their in human func- with the environment that tioning poses no threat to be taken between a strong involves pre- schemata a biblical view of truth and relativistic position on truth or frameworks that guide reality. and an absolutist one. both memory storage and recall.4 Piaget took the idea Individual Subjectivity: of interpretive frameworks Cognitive Schema Theory beyond memory processing and articulated an en- At the heart of schema theory is the relative tire theory of cognitive development based upon nature of human sensory perception. The claim their role in organizing all .5 that the process of perception is not an exact When the “cognitive ” took place match of the original sensation from the external in American psychology in the late 1960s,6 the world originates with .1 This idea mantle was taken up by many, including Ulrich was given experimental support in the late 1800s Neisser, who speculated that mental cognitive by the founder of psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, schemata result from actual physical processes in who researched psychophysics in Germany.2 For the nervous .7 example, I use this demonstration to illustrate Schema theory has even been explanatory in how perception is relative. I place two buckets of the research areas of artificial , neural water in front of the class, one with ice. I ask a network theory, and neuroscience, by theorists volunteer willing to get his or her hand wet, to including Michael Arbib.8 Arbib that rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the temperature of the schema theory is the best for going bucket without ice. This contains cold tap water, beyond the structure of the brain to an under- and the student usually rates it as a 3 or 4. Next, standing of the function of it.9 I have the student rate the ice water—using the In recent decades, many researchers have con- same hand—which usually receives an emphatic firmed that schemata serve as frameworks that rating of 1! I then instruct the student to quickly guide interpretation. This confirmation has been put his or her hand back into first bucket and rate shown in domains such as story recall,10 text com- the water anew. The student surprisingly says, “It prehension, and speed of recall,11 ,12 feels like a 6 or 7.” This response reveals that per- visual learning,13 cultural differences in cogni- ception is relative and is more dependent upon tion,14 computational ,15 and problem the current skin temperature than upon the tem- solving16 and has been applied widely in various perature of the stimulus. The point is that, at an disciplines, including .17 individual level, we are bound by an interpreta- The work by Wundt, Bartlett, Piaget, Neisser tion process that is relative to individual experi- and Arbib shows how our cognition is an inher- ence. ently subjective process. It is the interplay of an Over the years this idea has been used to ex- individual’s sensation and perception and the re-

Pro Rege—March 2018 15 ality of his or her environment. However, the role predictable and irregular. Rather than a vertical, of interpretive frameworks does not end here at linear process, he suggested more of a horizontal the individual level, but it extends to how mean- one of skips and jumps within a single plane, mo- ing is shared and understood collectively. The tivated not by anything objective but by subjec- same cognitive process lies at the core of human tive, socially-driven factors, such as personality, social efforts. Shared interpretive frameworks prestige, and . He even used the reli- function in ways that yield subjectivity. gious term of “faith” and the metaphor of “con- version” to describe how an individual scientist Collective Subjectivity jumps allegiance from one view to another. Humans are social creatures, dependent upon Kuhn’s basic for describing science the structures of , society, and culture. centers on the notion of a . A para- Given this social dependency, it makes sense that digm is a collective that the use of interpretive frameworks would have a includes a complicated mixture of assumptions, social counterpart seen in groups. theories, and hypotheses accepted by the group The idea was anticipated first in the 1930s by that establish a type of unconscious perimeter ’s sociocultural view of cognition. within which scientific investigation takes place. Vygotsky claimed inter-dependence between is better seen as growth in depth rather individual cognition and the social context in than growth in breadth. Science is like digging which it takes place.18 This view, that a type of a well straight down within a defined perimeter. collective interpretive framework guides group or Although not always known by those work- social functioning, has been articulated in disci- ing in it, the perimeter of the paradigm is limit- plines beyond the social sciences, most notably in ed. Nature, however, is not so limited; therefore, the and philosophy of science. some discoveries do not fit within the boundar- Over the last half-century, much investiga- ies of the tight-knit paradigm. Someone digging tion has looked at the social structure of science. near the edge may accidentally dig beyond the The findings have underscored the role of sub- boundary. Kuhn calls such findings “anomalies.” jectivity in scientific activity, in contrast to the They are often ignored and swept under the rug modernist , which sees science as a purely by those who discover them—unless they recur objective endeavor. The overarching consensus of enough to create a crisis within the paradigm: a this work has been that groups of scientists func- state of tension for anomalies that can no longer tion under a type of conceptual structure that be ignored. When the paradigm can no longer orients their work. This structure is subject to provide a comprehensive explanatory framework, non-science-related influences, such as aesthetics, that paradigm must give way to another para- , and personalities. Although there is digm in order to accommodate the new data. controversy as to who should get credit for the This giving way shifts the discipline to a com- originality of some of his ,19 none can pletely different and seemingly incompatible deny that Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of paradigm. Kuhn calls this change a “paradigm Scientific Revolutions20 has been one of the most shift,” or a “revolution”—a process of demolition important works published on the topic in the and reconstruction—in contrast to the - last half-century.21 al modernist view of gradual, vertical, linear, and harmonious progress. Human Science Guided by Paradigms Kuhn points to a gestalt switch (like a 3D Kuhn articulated a new way for understand- Necker cube drawing) as an analogy to describe ing scientific progress. He argued that a linear this process, where a single set of data can be progression of discovery upon discovery—ac- perceived in two completely different ways—but cumulating objective —was insuffi- only one way at a . Kuhn’s description un- cient for describing how science actually works. derscores the idea that humans are subjective in He proposed a model describing science as un- their collective interpretation of even scientific

16 Pro Rege—March 2018 , guided by a collective interpretive frame- world. work. Looking closely, however, we find that nei- ther view negates reality itself. Rather than see- Frameworks Do Not Yield Relativism ing these conflicting paradigms as supporting the So far, we have seen two similar descriptions idea that reality is only in the eye of the beholder, of how humans understand and experience the we should conclude that the interpretation of re- world, both individually and collectively—via ality is what is in the eye of the beholder. This lat- individual and shared interpretive frameworks: ter statement more clearly highlights the role of cognitive structures of belief and expectations our imperfect perception and cognition as they that guide the interpretation of reality. Each de- interact with the real world, rather than claiming scription highlights subjectivity in contrast to the that reality itself is malleable. of traditional Our view should be . Correctly understood, that a real world exists, The subjective and non- interpretive frameworks, such and that , based cumulative process dis- as schemata and paradigms, firmly in that real world, cussed by Kuhn, and also can nonetheless be inter- by others such as Polanyi22 are each quite compatible with preted and understood dif- in the 1960s, took direct objective, absolute reality. ferently, given the particu- aim at modernism’s objec- lar framework (i.e., schema tive impartiality and began, in part, to usher in or paradigm). John Searle articulates a similar post modernity. The knee-jerk reaction by many view. He presents a satisfying alternative to the in science, as well as in Christianity, has been to old modernist view as well as to the prevailing resist the sea change to . Some postmodern constructionist and deconstruction- have critiqued this change as relativism and anti- ist views, which both deny any ultimate real- science.23 Christians have resisted such new ity.24 Searle suggests that two types of facts ex- too because of the danger of runaway relativism. ist: “brute” facts, which are independent of what Such a view seems to undermine the Christian humans think about them (such as that Mount conviction of absolute truth’s flowing from an Everest has snow), and “social” facts, which are almighty sovereign , who is objectively real. humanly constructed and conceived individually Granted, the views presented allow for rela- or institutionally (such as a piece of paper is a $5 tive interpretation by individuals and groups, bill). This position affirms that which cognitive but I believe that neither should be classified as schema theory and philosophers of science, like endorsing postmodern relativism, which denies Kuhn, contend: that a true reality exists and that the of absolute truth. Correctly under- humans develop interpretive frameworks with stood, interpretive frameworks, such as schemata which they interpret that reality. and paradigms, are each quite compatible with objective, absolute reality. Illusory Schema Conflict: When relativity is an Schemata: Basis For Relativity? One important point to highlight is that Taking the ideas from cognitive psychology sometimes what looks like relativism is only an or philosophy of science to an extreme, we find illusion. Regarding the function of schemata as that it does look like postmodern relativism. Yes, they guide individual , I see two human perceptual “construct” an under- aspects of the process that can yield what I term standing of the world that does not always match “illusory schema conflict.” The first deals with reality. Yes, humans mentally construct schemata multiple exemplars of a single concept, while the that guide perception. Yes, collective thinking or other draws attention to the possibility of mul- paradigms seem to be exclusively mind-depen- tiple interpretations of a single exemplar. dent and subjective—apart from the objective Let me illustrate the first with the tallest

Pro Rege—March 2018 17 mountain question. If I asked, “What is the tall- whole. est mountain on Earth?” most would say Mount This way of looking at the story highlights Everest in Nepal and China—it stands over a distinction between the two types of schema 29,000 feet above sea level. However, is Mount conflict. The first, illustrated by the mountain Everest really the tallest mountain on Earth? If story, affirms the multiplicity of truth, mediated we invoke different schemata to define the con- by context, while the elephant story shows that a cept of “tallest mountain,” there can be a plural- grand truth may lie behind multiple interpreta- ity of correct answers: tions. This latter example emphasizes how seem- • Tallest from its base below sea level (un- ingly differing views may actually come together der water): Mauna Kea in Hawaii, 33,480 to provide a more complete understanding. The feet. apostle Paul makes a similar point in Romans • Tallest rising from ocean floor: Mount and I Corinthians when he explains that al- Lamlam, Guam, 37,820 feet from the though there are many separate parts of the body, Mariana Trench they function together as a whole.25 This princi- • Tallest from center of the earth: Mount ple applies not only to the physical body and the Chimborazo in Ecuador, over 20 million Church of Jesus Christ but also to human cogni- feet. tive function. The use of different schemata underscores In both cases of illusory schema conflict, the the role of definition and context. Interpersonal conflict seems to reveal incompatible ways of un- misunderstandings are often caused by this type derstanding when, in actuality, the conflicting of schema conflict. Two different interpretive schemata or views can be shown to be simultane- frameworks are correctly used, but they come ously totally true. to disparate conclusions. These differences show This raises the question of whether we, indi- that sometimes differences may be due not to vidually or collectively, are capable of seeing be- whether someone is wrong or right but simply to yond our own interpretive frameworks to perceive the that more than one point of view is vi- the whole. No , this perception of the whole able. might be possible, but probably not in all circum- The second type of schema conflict occurs stances because we have been created with lim- when differing schemata are derived honestly its: limits imposed simply by the fact from a single exemplar. An illustration of this is that we are created creatures and by the intrusion the ancient parable from India about six blind and distortion of .26 Both types of limitations men walking who encounter an obstacle in their probably a role in obstructing our view of the path. As each reaches out to touch what is in his whole. I speculate that some portions of our lim- way, the six have an awful because ited view, specifically those due to the distortion none can agree on what it is. One says it’s a spear, of sin, are potentially fixable, or at least partially, another says it is a hose, while yet another claims via sanctification; but post-consummation, some it is a fan. The fourth declares it is a wall, but of these limits will be entirely gone, and we will another claims it is a pillar, and the last is con- experience knowledge of the true-for-all-time, vinced it is a rope with a brush on its end. What uber-framework. they have encountered? The moral derived is that there are many ways to describe an elephant and An Uber-framework? that individual perception is limited. Some argue An uber-framework is the idea that there ex- that this parable illustrates relativity—that each ists an overarching that gives ulti- man experienced his own truth, valid for him mate meaning to varying and sometimes seem- and not the others. However, I suggest a more ingly disparate cultural and/or individual nar- cryptic meaning. Yes, each man’s framework was ratives. Several Christian scholars have argued different from that of the others, but the six views for the existence of such a superior framework.27 actually come together to form a more complete For example, Roy Clouser makes a case for an

18 Pro Rege—March 2018 mountain question. If I asked, “What is the tall- whole. overarching framework that subsumes both pure edge and Truth and that the Bible is a direct filter est mountain on Earth?” most would say Mount This way of looking at the story highlights Aristotelian objectivity and Kantian subjectivity for Truth. Kuyper believed that people can and Everest in Nepal and China—it stands over a distinction between the two types of schema and provides a third alternative: that ultimate should understand Christianity as a holistic and 29,000 feet above sea level. However, is Mount conflict. The first, illustrated by the mountain knowledge lies with God alone. Clouser suggests comprehensive philosophy of rather than as Everest really the tallest mountain on Earth? If story, affirms the multiplicity of truth, mediated that there exists an overarching uber-framework, just one compartmental aspect of human experi- we invoke different schemata to define the con- by context, while the elephant story shows that a albeit in the mind of God alone, that subsumes ence.31, 32 cept of “tallest mountain,” there can be a plural- grand truth may lie behind multiple interpreta- all others.28 This is where Kuyper highlights world- ity of correct answers: tions. This latter example emphasizes how seem- This idea has been articulated by many in the view as a type of interpretive framework. The • Tallest from its base below sea level (un- ingly differing views may actually come together context of worldview philosophy, particularly by term itself is translated from the German word der water): Mauna Kea in Hawaii, 33,480 to provide a more complete understanding. The Christians who believe that in God lies ultimate Weltanschauung, which means “a particular way feet. apostle Paul makes a similar point in Romans truth, or the true worldview of —the of looking at the world.” The term originates • Tallest rising from ocean floor: Mount and I Corinthians when he explains that al- uber-framework. In my with Kant, as we saw with Lamlam, Guam, 37,820 feet from the though there are many separate parts of the body, judgment, the concept An uber-framework is the idea the term schema.33 Since his Mariana Trench they function together as a whole.25 This princi- paradigm that we have that there exists an overarching time, it has come to mean • Tallest from center of the earth: Mount ple applies not only to the physical body and the described thus far in the metanarrative that gives a set of underlying assump- Chimborazo in Ecuador, over 20 million Church of Jesus Christ but also to human cogni- context of the philosophy tions that define the feet. tive function. of science is identical in ultimate meaning to varying of the age or the particular The use of different schemata underscores In both cases of illusory schema conflict, the essence and function with and sometimes seemingly way a culture manifests it- the role of definition and context. Interpersonal conflict seems to reveal incompatible ways of un- the concept of worldview disparate cultural and/or self in , art, philos- misunderstandings are often caused by this type derstanding when, in actuality, the conflicting that has been articulated individual narratives. ophy, and science. Kuyper of schema conflict. Two different interpretive schemata or views can be shown to be simultane- by many Christian phi- used the term to suggest frameworks are correctly used, but they come ously totally true. losophers. that multiple worldviews to disparate conclusions. These differences show This raises the question of whether we, indi- can co-exist and be in conflict with one another that sometimes differences may be due not to vidually or collectively, are capable of seeing be- Christian Worldview Philosophy while competing for people’s allegiance. whether someone is wrong or right but simply to yond our own interpretive frameworks to perceive In David Naugle’s in-depth look at the con- In his day, Kuyper identified two oppos- the fact that more than one point of view is vi- the whole. No doubt, this perception of the whole cept of worldview, he traces the idea of an over- ing “,” or worldviews, that were in direct able. might be possible, but probably not in all circum- arching worldview that explains all reality—back conflict: modernism versus Christianity. Kuyper The second type of schema conflict occurs stances because we have been created with lim- to the Reformation writings of John Calvin and suggested that the conflict resulted ultimately when differing schemata are derived honestly its: normative limits imposed simply by the fact then, in the late 1800s, to Scottish theologian from Adam and Eve’s fall in to sin. The Fall pro- from a single exemplar. An illustration of this is that we are created creatures and by the intrusion James Orr and Dutch theologian Abraham duced an antithesis, or tension between God and the ancient parable from India about six blind and distortion of sin.26 Both types of limitations Kuyper.29 As the more well-known of these two, idolatry (or ), that is manifested in all human men walking who encounter an obstacle in their probably play a role in obstructing our view of the Kuyper’s version will be described briefly. endeavors. Relating this antithesis to science, for path. As each reaches out to touch what is in his whole. I speculate that some portions of our lim- example, Naugle states, way, the six have an awful argument because ited view, specifically those due to the distortion Kuyperian Worldview Philosophy Kuyper argues [that]… regenerate people none can agree on what it is. One says it’s a spear, of sin, are potentially fixable, or at least partially, Kuyper is known for applying Calvinism to with a Christian worldview produce a … the- another says it is a hose, while yet another claims via sanctification; but post-consummation, some everyday life, focusing on the sovereignty of the istic interpretation of science, and non-regen- it is a fan. The fourth declares it is a wall, but of these limits will be entirely gone, and we will God of the Bible over all aspects of reality: cos- erate people with a non-Christian worldview another claims it is a pillar, and the last is con- experience knowledge of the true-for-all-time, mos, culture and thought. Calvin believed that produce an idolatrous science …. Scientific vinced it is a rope with a brush on its end. What uber-framework. God revealed Himself to humans via the created reason is not the same for all people. It de- they have encountered? The moral derived is that order, as well as through the Bible, the infallible pends upon whether or not the scientist has there are many ways to describe an elephant and An Uber-framework? and inerrant words written under the influence of or has not been religiously renewed. There that individual perception is limited. Some argue An uber-framework is the idea that there ex- the Holy Spirit. Of these two , Calvin is not a neutral scientific rationality leading that this parable illustrates relativity—that each ists an overarching metanarrative that gives ulti- gave priority to the Bible when he used the meta- to certain objective and shared conclusions. man experienced his own truth, valid for him mate meaning to varying and sometimes seem- phor of the Scriptures spectacles through Instead, scientific theories are a function of and not the others. However, I suggest a more ingly disparate cultural and/or individual nar- which humans are to interpret and understand the religious backgrounds and philosophical cryptic meaning. Yes, each man’s framework was ratives. Several Christian scholars have argued the rest of God’s creation.30 In other words, orientations of the scientists or theorists.34 different from that of the others, but the six views for the existence of such a superior framework.27 Calvin claimed that God, as sovereign creator It is important to point out that the conflict actually come together to form a more complete For example, Roy Clouser makes a case for an of all things, is the ultimate source of all knowl- is not in the science itself but in the conclusions

18 Pro Rege—March 2018 Pro Rege—March 2018 19 made (i.e., interpretation and application). meaning that knowing with the heart, which is Kuyper is basically arguing that collective the center of human , involves the interpretive frameworks function in society. totality of our being. This is where our individual His argument is similar to our earlier descrip- cognitive schemata intermingle with our collec- tion of collective cognition as seemingly relative. tive paradigms and worldviews and guide us in But Kuyper’s Christian worldview philosophy is holistic biological, psychological, and social con- clearly based on a belief that there is a real creator, sciousness. God, who is objectively manifest in the material creation as well as in the Bible. Both realms are Conclusion objectively true. But seeming relativity comes The interpretive frameworks we have looked into Kuyper’s thought when he claims that there at (cognitive schemata, paradigms, and world- are different interpretations of that reality: “ab- views) seem to all function in a common way— normal” and “normal,” as he termed them.35 as filters to help us understand the world around Those who are regenerated by the power of God’s us. This way of human perception seems to be by Holy Spirit are given a new outlook, which al- design. God created us to gain individual and so- lows them to understand that the cosmos is in cial knowledge through interpretive frameworks. an abnormal state due to sin and in need of re- These frameworks provide a starting point as well demption through Jesus Christ, but those who as an important for our exploration and are unregenerate see all as normal and see the progress in fulfilling the cultural mandate.41 need for Christ as folly. The result is a difference One aspect of this design is clear: there are in interpretation of a single reality, not a differ- limitations. We are limited perceivers but will ence between two constructed that are someday be freed from at least part of the limita- mutually exclusive. tion. Human nature is restricted in that we are One implication from Christian Worldview creatures created by God and, as such, will never philosophy is that God’s reality is the uber-frame- apprehend fully the true uber-worldview, which work—the true paradigm or schemata, the only is known by God alone. We all are affected by the correct interpretation—and that human access distortion of sin, which implies that some of the to the framework is only possible by regenera- subjectivity of our cognitive is due to tion of the Holy Spirit. The reverse implication is sin. This distortion explains why errors happen at that without God’s , flawed frameworks or all levels of our interpretive frameworks. wrong schemata, paradigms, or worldviews exist, The Christian’s is that Christ’s redemp- leading to framework errors at all levels. tive work of restoration will yield for us a more Another implication is that because the Holy complete way of knowing at His second coming. Spirit’s regeneration focuses inwardly, we may As the apostle Paul said, “Now I know in part; need to consider that our interpretive frameworks then I shall know fully.” We have confidence that are more than cognitive. Recently, some have be- part of the limitation in our ability to know will gun to critique36 the idea of worldview as a static, be removed. theoretical, and cognitive process and to direct Perhaps without sin’s effect upon our inter- us to see our interpretive frameworks as coming pretive frameworks, we may share a common from the heart—which encompasses our perceptual organization, , culture, para- more holistically.37 For example, Jamie Smith digm, and worldview. Having a shared interpre- suggests that when talking about worldview, we tive framework seems consistent with the bibli- need to move to a more non-cognitive, affective cal theme of restoration. Recall that the origin model, which includes our cares, concerns, mo- of multiple and culture groups came tivations, and .38 Based upon insight from from God’s judgment of sin at the Tower of Esther Meek,39 Naugle argues that “the heart Babel. Perhaps God will bring “heart” and “cog- needs to be rooted in the physical body…and an- nitive” unity to all the diverse nations who occu- chored in the ebb and flow of the real world,”40 py the new Jerusalem by establishing a common

20 Pro Rege—March 2018 set of interpretive frameworks for all its citizens. 9. Ibid. The biblical narrative of creation, fall, redemp- 10. Jean M. Mandler, Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: tion, and consummation is the human entrance Aspects of Schema Theory (Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum, into God’s true worldview, the uber-framework, 1984); David E. Rumelhart, “Schemata: The where God’s people will know more fully, which Building Blocks of Cognition,” Theoretical Issues may mean to know in the same way from percept in Reading and Comprehension, eds. Rodney to thought to culture. When that day arrives, we J. Shapiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. all, including Anthony de Mello, will no longer Brewer (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980), 33-58; see and understand things as we were, but will Roger C. Schank and Robert P. Abelson, Scripts, see and understand them as God intended, as Plans, Goals, and Understanding (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977). they truly are. 11. Edward E. Smith and David A. Swinney, “The Endnotes Role of Schemas in Reading Text: A Real-Time Examination,” Discourse Processes 15 (1992): 303- 1. Immanuel Kant, , trans. 316. Paul Guyer and Allan W. Wood (1781; reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); 12. John D. Bransford and Marcia K. Johnson, D. Brett King, Wayne Viney and W. Douglas “Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding: Woody, A History of Psychology: Ideas and Context, Some Investigations of Comprehension and 3rd ed. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2008). Recall,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (1972): 717-26; see also John D. 2. King, Viney & Woody, A History of Psychology. Bransford and Jeffrey J. Franks, The Social 3. David E. Rumelhart and Andrew Ortony, “The Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Representation of Knowledge in Memory,” of Knowledge (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Schooling and Acquisition of Knowledge, eds. Company, Inc., 1966). Richard C. Anderson, Rodney J. Shapiro, and 13. Richard A. Couch, Edward J. Caropreso, and William E. Montague (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Helen B. Miller, “Making Meaning from Visuals: 1977), 99-135. Creative Thinking and Interpretation of Visual 4. Frederic C. Bartlett, Remembering: An Information,” Visual Literacy: A Spectrum of Visual Experimental and Social Study (Cambridge: Learning, eds. David M. Moore and Francis Cambridge University Press, 1932). M. Dwyer (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1994), 277-94. 5. Jean Piaget, The Language and Thought of the Child (Oxford: Harcourt Brace, 1926); see also 14. Naomi Quinn and Dorothy Holland, Cultural Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence in Children Models of Language and Thought (New York: (New York: International Universities Press, Cambridge University Press, 1987). 1954). 15. Chris R. Stephens and Henri Waelbroeck, 6. George A. Miller, “The Cognitive Revolution: “Schemata and Building Blocks,” A Historical Perspective,” Trends in Cognitive Evolutionary Computation 7 (1999): 109-24. Science 7 (2003): 141-44. 16. Edward A. Price and Marcy P. Driscoll, “An 7. Ulric Neisser, Cognitive Psychology (New York: Inquiry into the Spontaneous Transfer of Appleton-Century-Crosts, 1967); see also Ulric Problem Solving Skill,” Contemporary Educational Neisser, “Ulric Neisser,” in vol. 9 of History of Psychology 22, (1997): 472-94. Psychology in Autobiography, eds. Gardner Lindzey 17. Richard C. Anderson and P. David Pearson, and William M. Runyan (Washington, DC, US: “A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes American Psychological Association, 2007), 269- in Reading,” Handbook of Reading Research, ed. 301. P. David Pearson (New York: Longman, 1984), 8. Michael A. Arbib, “Schema Theory,” The 255-91; Richard C. Anderson, Rodney J. Shapiro, Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, and William E. Montague, eds., Schooling and the 2nd ed., ed. Michael A. Arbib (Cambridge, MA: Acquisition of Knowledge (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, MIT Press, 2003), 993-999. 1977).

Pro Rege—March 2018 21 18. Lev S. Vygotsky, (1926; Sire, Naming the Elephant (Downers Grove, IL: reprint, Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press, 1997). InterVarsity Press, 2004); James H. Olthuis, 19. David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History “On Worldviews,” Christian Scholar’s Review 14 of a Concept (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (1985): 153-64; Francis Schaffer,The God Who Publishing, 2002); Martin Martin X. Moleski, Is There (1968, reprint, InterVarsity Press, 1998); “Polanyi vs. Kuhn: Worldviews Apart,” Tradition Naugle, Worldview; Albert M. Walters, Creation & Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical 33 Regained, (1985; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: (2006): 8-24. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005); Arthur F. Holmes, Contours of a Worldview (Grand Rapids, MI: 20. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Eerdmans Publishing, 1983); Brian J. Walsh and (Chicago: University of Chicago J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Press, 1962); This edition was followed by a second Shaping a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, edition in 1970 with a clarifying post script. IL: Intervarsity Press, 1984). 21. Naugle, Worldview. 29. David K. Naugle, “Worldview: History, , 22. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge. Implications,” After Worldview, eds. Matthew Bonzo and Michael Stevens (Sioux Center, IA: 23. Elof A. Carlson, “Paradigms and the History Dordt College Press, 2009); See also Naugle, The Quarterly Review of of Human Genetics,” Worldview. Biology 64, no. 3 (1989): 319-22; Elof A. Carlson, Mendel’s Legacy: The Origin of Classical Genetics 30. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian , (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor ed. John T. NcNeill, trans. Ford L. Battles (1659; Laboratory Press, 2004); Paul R. Gross and reprint, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1998). Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic 31. A full description of Kuyper’s philosophy is Left and its Quarrel with Science (Baltimore: John beyond the scope of this paper. For summaries Hopkins University Press, 1994); Paul R. Gross, of his ideas in English, see Kuyper, Lectures on Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis, eds., The Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948); Flight from Science and Reason (Baltimore: John Kuyper, of Sacred Theology(Grand Hopkins University Press, 1997). Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980). 24. John R. Searle, The Construction of 32. For expansions to Kuyper’s ideas by Dutch (New York: The Free Press, 1995). For more philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd in the next information about the postmodern constructionist, generation, see Herman Dooyeweerd, In the see Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman, The Social Twilight of Western Thought (Nutley, NJ: Craig Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology Press, 1968); Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western of Knowledge (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Culture: Pagan, Secular, and Christian Options, Company, Inc., 1966). For more information trans. John Kraay (Toronto: Wedge, 1979). about the postmodern deconstructionist, see Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri 33. Naugle, Worldview; Immanuel Kant, Critique of C. Spivak (1967; reprint, Baltimore: John Hopkins , trans. Werner S. Pluhar (1790; reprint, University Press, 1997). Indianappolis: Hackett, 1987). 25. See Romans 12:4 and I Corinthians 12:12, 34. Naugle, Worldview, 21-22. English Standard Version. 35. Kuyper, Lectures, 132. 26. For more discussion of this idea see Matthew P. 36. James K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom (Grand Phelps, “Imago Dei and Limited Creature: High Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2009), and Low Views of Human in Christianity Bonzo & Stevens, After Worldview; Esther Meek, and Cognitive Psychology,” Christian Scholar’s Loving To Know: Covenant (Eugene, Review 33 (2004): 345-66. OR: Cascade Books, 2011); Sire, Naming the 27. Roy A. Clouser, The of Religious Neutrality, Elephant; Naugle, “Worldview”. Revised Ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of 37. W. Andrew Hoffecker, “Enlightenments and Notre Dame Press, 2005). Awakenings: The Beginning of Modern Culture 28. James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door (Downers Wars,” Revolutions in Worldview, ed. W. Andrew Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988); James W. Hoffecker (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing,

22 Pro Rege—March 2018 2007), 240-280. 41. See Genesis 1:28. 38. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 64. 42. See Phelps, Imago Dei. 39. Meek, Loving To Know. 43. I Corinthians 13:10, 12, English Standard Version 40. Naugle, Worldview, 19. 44. See Genesis 11.

Pro Rege—March 2018 23