Question 2 From Dana

What role do you think tolerance should play in the Christian faith?

Dana,

I wish I had the time and space to discuss this fully with you, but this forum does not lend itself to long writings. So here is a VERY brief smattering of information.

The word “Tolerance” has at least two meanings today. It has a traditional meaning as described in the dictionary,

“sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own”
"tolerance." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010

The Bible tells us to “live in harmony with one another. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:16,18). We are told to “accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (Rom 15:7). The Bible makes it clear how Christians should act toward each other, and those outside the faith:

Ephesians 4:2 (New International Version)

²Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.

Ephesians 4:32 (New International Version)

³²Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Colossians 3:13 (New International Version)

¹³Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.

Galatians 6:10 (New International Version)

¹⁰Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Traditional tolerance is quite compatible with scriptural commands because the traditional understanding of tolerance has meant respecting and protecting the legitimate rights of others, even with those you do not agree with and those who are different from you. In a passive sense, traditional tolerance means “everyone has the right to their opinion.” It also means living peacefully with others, and accepting other people regardless of their race, creed, nationality, or sex. Basically it values, accepts, and respects the individual without necessarily approving of or participating in his or her beliefs or behavior. It differentiates between who the person is and what the person thinks or does

But today there is a NEW definition of the word “Tolerance.” Probably 80% of the time someone uses the word “Tolerance” they are referring to the new definition. It may sound like tolerance, but it is far from it. The NEW tolerance is based on the belief that truth is relative to the community in which a person lives, and since there are so many communities in which people live there are many versions of the truth. Having said all of this, there is still the sad fact that one of the most damaging charges aimed at Christians today is that we and our religion are intolerant. This is an effective insult, not because some Christians are indeed intolerant, but because Christianity itself is judged to be an intolerant (meaning lacking in virtue) faith system.

Now I will get back to the question, and I am going to switch gears a little bit, so stay with me. In his book True Tolerance, J. Budziszewski writes, “The specific virtue of true tolerance has to do with the fact that sometimes we put up with things we rightly consider mistaken, wrong, harmful, offensive, or in some other way not worth approval.” Our current confusion has occurred because tolerance has been elevated to a place above all other virtues. Again, Budziszewski writes,

Our most gifted thinkers no longer treat tolerance as a queenly virtue to be guarded among many others equally precious, but as a shrewish virtue that excludes all the rest. For now we are told that the meaning of tolerance is ethical neutrality, neutrality about which things are worth the love of human beings and which traits of character are worth praising.

“Because many in our culture have become skeptical about knowing the difference between what is good and what is evil, they argue that we are left with only two options when it comes to tolerance. We can either be ethically neutral, choosing to value equally all ideas and actions, or be a religious fanatic who claims to have perfect moral knowledge and who tries to impose absolute moral virtues on everyone else.”

Actually, ethical neutrality is an impossible and irrational position to defend. Holding the position assumes that one has answered the question, why should I be ethically neutral? Yet the construction of any answer violates the very neutrality being defended.

Another problem with moral skepticism is that the act of tolerance is dependent on some concept of what is morally good. One tolerates behavior or beliefs he or she disagrees with because of a higher or more important good. For instance, even though we believe that Christianity is true and that Christ is the only answer to mankind’s problems, we encourage freedom of religion because it is only by freely choosing to believe, and not by force or coercion, that someone comes to true faith. Religious intolerance and coercion can actually cause someone to claim faith in Christ when none exists.

True tolerance, how does this traditional view of tolerance work?

Budziszewski argues that ethical neutrality based on moral skepticism is not a reasonable option. He writes, “If a skeptic finds reasons for tolerance, he finds it not by reason of the things he is skeptical about, but by reasons of the things he is not skeptical about.” In other words, one is tolerant because one is not ethically neutral. Someone cannot be neutral about everything and still have a reason to be tolerant because they would be neutral about tolerance as well.

Is there another alternative? There is what might be called the traditional view of tolerance, or what we will call true tolerance. Rather than ethical neutrality or a blind appeal to religious authority, true tolerance has to do with making judgments based on a concept of what is good.

Again Budziszewski writes,

“True tolerance is not the art of tolerating; it is the art of knowing when and how to tolerate. It is not the forbearance from judgment, but the fruit of judgment. We may disapprove something for the love of some moral good yet we may be moved to put up with it from still deeper intuitions about the same moral good or other moral goods, and on such deeper intuitions the discipline of tolerance is based.”

His point is that real tolerance always depends on judgment regarding what one values. It is never the result of moral skepticism. The act of tolerating something is not the heart of the issue. The key to understanding tolerance is to appreciate the process of weighing the different goals or moral ends that might be involved. These moral ends are often separated into three groups. The lowest order of ends includes health, happiness in the generic sense, good repute, peace, beauty and companionship. Next comes what can be called intrinsic goods like virtue and truth. Finally, the highest order good is the unconditional commitment to ones ultimate concerns or worldview. The confusion surrounding this topic today might be so acute because we have turned this list of moral goods on its head; our society seems to value personal happiness and peace over virtue, truth, and commitment to a faith or worldview.

True tolerance is built into the very fabric of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Although it is popular to believe that tolerance is a modern secular concept, perhaps original to the Enlightenment thinker John Locke, political philosopher J. Budziszewski argues that it is a Christian innovation. “Even though Christians are not always obedient or even aware of their heritage, the Christian tradition represents the source of the very standard by which their intolerant acts could be judged wrong.”

True tolerance depends on positive beliefs, not moral skepticism in order to function and make sense. Does Christianity provide a foundation for true tolerance? Actually, it provides the necessary beliefs on a number of levels.

First, Christians are called to imitate the model that Christ Himself gave us. God incarnate came to earth as a humble child giving us the perfect picture of love and tolerance on Gods behalf. The perfect and holy God who created the universe stepped into time and space among sinful and rebellious humans to show His love and to win theirs. Both believers and unbelievers have been moved by the humility and mercy Jesus displayed towards others. His instruction to love your neighbor as yourself and the fact that He offered Gods love to those considered sinful and not worthy of forgiveness sets Him apart from other religious teachers. Jesus didn’t demand moral perfection to gain Gods approval; He offered reconciliation based on His perfect sacrifice. Biblical Christianity recognizes the persistent human aptitude for self-centered behavior, and calls mature believers to battle against it. Paul writes, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil 2:3-4).

Secondly, Christianity offers a universal message to every tribe and nation. No distinction is made based on gender, race, or ethnicity. God is calling all people to accept His gift of salvation, and the church should reflect that multicultural reality. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that all people are made in the image of God and are not only important to Him but are redeemable through Christ’s blood.

Finally, Christians can be tolerant of both the actions and beliefs of their neighbors because of their worldview or ultimate concerns. The task given to us by God is not to enforce a set of laws or style of worship, but to offer the message of reconciliation in Christ. Instead of separating from the sinful and dangerous culture that God has placed us into, we are sent into the world by Christ to be salt and light so that many might hear the good news and respond to the offer of grace and forgiveness by trusting in Christ’s payment for sin.

I hope this helps a little bit.

Thanks for your question!

Travis

Question from Dana.

Question from Dana.
(not sure who she is, but here it is)

If Jesus were born in this day and age, what do you think about our society or laws would make it appropriate timing now, too?

Dana,

Of all the questions I have seen posted this should have been the most obvious, but even though it should have been the obvious question it is, in my opinion, a great question to ponder. Here is a little something from my archives. I did not list the source when I saved it. I used while teaching and I know I cited it, but none the less I have no idea of the origin. It is great.

HEADLINE:

INFANT DISCOVERED IN BARN, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES LAUNCH PROBE
Nazareth Carpenter Being Held On Charges Involving Underage Mother

Bethlehem, Judea - Authorities were today alerted by a concerned citizen who
noticed a family living in a barn. Upon arrival, Family Protective Service
personnel, accompanied by police, took into protective care an infant child
named Jesus, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding
trough by his 14-year old mother, Mary of Nazareth.

During the confrontation, a man identified as Joseph, also of Nazareth,
attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several local
shepherds and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to
take the child, but were restrained by the police.

Also being held for questioning are three foreigners who allege to be wise
men from an eastern country. The INS and Homeland Security
officials are seeking information about these who may be in the country
illegally. A source with the INS states that they had no passports, but were
in possession of gold and other possibly illegal substances. They resisted
arrest saying that they had been warned by God to avoid officials in
Jerusalem and to return quickly to their own country. The chemical
substances in their possession will be tested.

The owner of the barn is also being held for questioning. The manager
Bethlehem Inn faces possible revocation of his license for violating
health and safety regulations by allowing people to stay in the stable.
Civil authorities are also investigating the zoning violations involved
in maintaining livestock in a commercially-zoned district.

The location of the minor child will not be released, and the prospect for a
quick resolution to this case is doubtful. Asked about when Jesus would be
returned to his mother, a Child Protective Service spokesperson said, "The
father is middle-aged and the mother definitely underage. We are checking
with officials in Nazareth to determine what their legal relationship is.

Joseph has admitted taking Mary from her home in Nazareth because of a
census requirement. However, because she was obviously pregnant when
they left, investigators are looking into other reasons for their departure.
Joseph is being held without bond on charges of molestation,
kidnapping, child endangerment, and statutory rape.

Mary was taken to the Bethlehem General Hospital where she is being examined
by doctors Charges may also be filed against her for endangerment. She will
also undergo psychiatric evaluation because of her claim that she is a
virgin and that the child is from God.

The director of the psychiatric wing said, "I don't profess to have the
right to tell people what to believe, but when their beliefs adversely
affect the safety and well-being of others - in this case her child - we
must consider her a danger to others. The unidentified drugs at the
scene didn't help her case, but I'm confident that with the proper therapy
regiment we can get her back on her feet."

A spokesperson for the governor's office said, "Who knows what was going
through their heads? But regardless, their treatment of the child was
inexcusable, and the involvement of these others frightening. There is much
we don't know about this case, but for the sake of the child and the public,
you can be assured that we will pursue this matter to the end."

This scenario makes it clear to me that God’s time is the best time!

Great Question

Thanks
T

The Life of R. G. LeTourneau

The Life of R. G. LeTourneau

Attitude

Two hundred ninety-nine appears to be the best number for patents to be credited to R. G. LeTourneau. His life was spent learning and applying that knowledge to build things to help others move things. The catalyst for his success can be seen all the way back at the beginning of his life in the way his own father showed him unconditional love. When the young “Bob” LeTourneau decided to run away his father, much like the story of the prodigal son, welcomed him back.

I his book (1972) he goes on to say about his father’s response, “What a lesson that has been for me all my life. Discovering my father’s love changed my whole attitude…It’s like that, only more so, when you discover the Lord.” (p.37)

R. G. LeTourneau believed his success in life hinged on changing his attitude. That change in attitude led to his curiosity about how things worked. Down time would find him trying to repair things around the house, or you might even say he was building his foundation for the future. His next step was leaving school having not finished and move into the working world. From his humble beginnings R. G. LeTourneau might never have imagined what was to come, but life was to present challenges that only faith and a strong work ethic could overcome.

Life Happens

The death of a child, moving back closer to God, opening a business, and the stock market crashing would put an end to the road to success for most but not R. G. LeTourneau. Glimpses of Christian History (2007) tells us that life was so tough that, “Often they (R. G. and his wife Evelyn) did without necessities. For years they did not even have running water.” These roadblocks would stop most people in their tracks, but R. G. LeTourneau would go on to invent equipment big enough, and be faithful to the Lord enough that he would be able to move any obstacle. The future was wide open to possibilities, and demand would create a void that R. G. LeTourneau would be glad to fill.

Success Happens

Ironically, his first invention was used only to make a lot of noise but little else. Unemployment, on the other hand, had become the stepping-stone to success. In his book (1972), he says his next step after selling his share in a business and being $5000 in debt and unemployed was to “take the first job I can find that’s good enough to pay my debts,” and that job was his entry point into the “earth-moving business.” (p.94) Eventually his aptitude for inventing would insert itself in a big way. Karwathka (2006) says, “He coupled one (a large farm tractor) to a land scraper and opened a business as a land-leveling contractor.” (p.8) He continued to modify his original design and made it better with each change. He eventually built a plant to manufacture them in 1920. R. G. LeTourneau continued a process of improving on each improvement, which led to more inventions and bigger breakthroughs. His inventions made working time much more effective by inventing machines that could perform multiple task opposed to just being able to do one thing. His second invention, a result of customer complaining, was to replace the steel wheels with rubber tires on his large scraping machine.

The Nation Calls

With the growth of the automobile industry came the growth of the road building industry. Who better to turn to than R. G. LeTourneau? He made equipment large enough to get the roads built more efficiently. Shortly thereafter he was to, as Karwatka (2006) put it, “manufacture nearly 75% of the earth-moving equipment used by American armed forces during World War II.” His equipment was used to build many massive structures such as the Hoover Dam. As he continued down the road of success, he eventually sold the business that brought him that success. Most people would have walked away, but R. G. LeTourneau had more to build.

Moving on

An old government hospital, a desire for a more Godly education, and one dollar were the elements that R. G. LeTourneau needed to move into his next building project that would become LeTourneau University. He believed and practiced the earn while you learn program, and he wanted to integrate the Christian way of life with higher education. His original intent for the school was to help men learn technical trades under the GI Bill. His dream has continued to move forward with LeTourneau University becoming a co-ed, 4 year accredited university, the capstone on a life of building.

Final Thoughts

Though resources are scarce, everything that one can find about R. G. LeTourneau reflects a man who understood the true meaning of life. He knew who God was and who he was. He understood faith, a good work ethic, and generosity would bring success. He had times of pain and times of joy. He saw what could be, and made it happen.

R.G. LeTourneau gives the best definition of how to build a life when he quotes Matthew 6:33, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His Righteousness; and all these things will be added unto you.”

References

Karwatka, D. (2006, May). technology's past. Tech Directions, 65(10), 8-8. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Letourneau, R. G. (1972). Mover of Men and Mountains. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Kooiman, Helen (2007). No Obstacle Too Big for LeTourneau's God. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from Glimpses of Christian History Web site: http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com/DAILYF/2001/08/daily-08-27-2001.shtml

T

Humanistic Psychology

Humanism, putting “I” or “me” at the center of the universe, has been an insidious problem for humanity from the very beginning of man’s existence. We could begin with Adam and Eve, who, when the serpent spoke to Eve, revealed more about the human condition than we could ever hope to learn from all that the history of psychology might want to teach us. In the garden the following scene plays out,

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (Emphasis mine)
7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
Genesis 3:1-7 (NASB)

As these events play out we get the first glimpse of person-centered behavior ever recorded, and what eventually proves to be the fall of mankind. The thought processes exhibited by Eve (and Adam) continue to be evidenced throughout history.
In the ancient Greek world early humanistic beliefs were propagated by Anaxagoras who proposed the idea of “Free Thinking.” This idea allowed Epicurus to develop his human-centered approaches to achieving a state of “eudaimon,” or what we would know as happiness achieved through self-actualization. However, on the horizon, we see the mechanistic view marching forward.

Beginning with the 14th and 15th centuries the mechanistic view of humanity was taking shape. Also, the idea of self-determinism was on the rise. Thomas Hobbes recognized how society was wandering down the path of humanistic thought. One feature of Hobbes’s theory of why people behaved the way they did was that he considered human nature as being absolutely egoistic. He describes people as being, by nature, selfish and not in fact considering others. “In his psychological analysis he finds naught but self-regarding feelings impelling man’s activity.” (Hobbes, 1898) Although Hobbes himself was a proponent of a Christian worldview, his reference in this writing is to reveal the prevailing zeitgeist of his day. His words show the pervasiveness of humanistic thought processes during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The progression of humanistic thought continues to grow, and it finds a foothold in the center of Germany the home of the beginnings of modern psychology.
One of the more ardent proponents of humanistic psychology was Charlotte Buhler. She conveys that her clients often say they don't know what they want, and they do not know what they believe in. Buhler subsequently states, “…this is a call for humanistic psychology, a psychology that guides people in defining what they think is healthy and meaningful living. It is through this clarification of goals that people become fulfilled.” (Buhler, 1972) (Emphasis mine)

Again we see the same type of thinking that caused Adam and Eve so much pain, and what Thomas Hobbes saw as he observed the behavior of his day. Humanistic thinking focuses on “I” and “me.” It focuses on the self-_________ (fill in the blank). The people mentioned thus far reveal to us the anthropocentric nature of humanism. All was not humanistic thought from the 15th through 19th centuries. Blaise Pascal, Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James C. Maxwell, and J. Robert Oppenheimer represented the best that science had to offer. All based there science in the fact that there is a creator who is also a lawgiver, and none of them believed that man, starting from himself could understand anything. None of them had a humanistic outlook.

Non-Christian philosophers from the time of Plato to Sartre had some common ground. They were rationalists. They assumed man, starting with himself, can gather enough information to form logical conclusions (understanding) of who they were and why they behaved as they did. They believed all knowledge comes from inside them leaving out the possibility of God. They also took reasoned though very seriously. Their logical conclusion was they could achieve true knowledge through reason alone. These older views, albeit faulty, show an optimistic outlook on life and knowledge. But a shift occurred that moved men from an optimistic view to a view that all is lost. The humanistic expectation that autonomous man would be able to bring together a unified view of human nature stalled. The pessimistic view of man was ushered in by men like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, and Soren Kierkegaard. The main idea for these men could be summed in this way, autonomous freedom, meaning freedom from any kind of restraint, and truth being sought in the synthesis of ideas instead of absolutes or antithesis. Some going as far to say meaning is found through a “leap of faith.” Without absolutes the door was left wide open for humanistic thought to inflict more damage. The age of psychology was beginning and the men of the 20th century will take humanistic ideas to the edge of reasoned thought. Thus, Humanistic Psychology will be born. Abraham Maslow, born in 1908, believed that although psychoanalysis as posited by Freud was somewhat useful, but Maslow said it was on useful on the sick. He placed his emphasis on studying the non-sick. Maslow studied those who had achieved higher levels of satisfaction with life. He wanted to understand what motivated the thought processes of successful and well adjusted people. Thus marks the beginning of Humanistic Psychology which teaches that every person has a strong desire to realize his or her full potential, to reach a level of Self-actualization. Maslow used a visual aid to represent his idea of a Hierarchy of Needs which shows how people progress from the most basic needs to the pinnacle of self-actualization. The system emanates as follows,

“By satisfying basic needs such as food, water, sex, exercise, and recreation, and feeling safe, we can progress to higher order, psychological needs such as love, needs for belonging, and self-esteem. When these are met, it provides the confidence and focus to reach the pinnacle of psychological integration, or self-actualization.” (Jacobs, 2002)

Basically Maslow states that once we satisfy our basic needs we, in humanistic fashion, continue to put ourselves first. With that understanding, human behavior is seen as based on a perception of reality that causes the individual to act accordingly and satisfy their needs in light of those perceptions. Maslow took this idea a step further by stating that the way the needs are filled are just as important as the needs themselves. He said that filling the needs and the way they are filled combine to make up the human experience. Maslow’s idea of meaning level of self-actualization is achieved when a person establishes meaningful connections to an external reality. Establishing an external connection is the goal of Carl Roger’s client-centered therapy.

The client-centered or person-centered psychology is probably the biggest perpetuator of humanistic psychology, and the dangerous ideas that flow from it that have come about in our lifetime. Carl Rogers was influenced by the views of John Dewey, Sigmund Freud, and Soren Kierkegaard. His brand of psychology is humanistic, but it is also existentialistic as well. Where Rogers ideas begin to break down are in the area of human nature. He believes that people are intrinsically good. He also believes they are rational, and trustworthy. From these basic beliefs he constructs his entire premise which states that people have an inherit tendency toward actualization, growth, health, independence, and autonomy. His theory is not without many shortcomings, “The person-centered counseling perspective in its “classic” form possesses nearly insurmountable obstacles for rehabilitation practitioners.” (See, 1986) Rogers offers a statement in his book, A Way of Being, which is true to humanistic thinking, but causes problems for those trying to engage his theory, “individuals have within themselves vast resources for self-understanding and for altering their self-concepts, basic attitudes, and self-directed behavior.” (Rogers, 1980) The theories of Maslow and Rogers seem, on the surface, to be reasonable, but are they really?

The Christian view of humanity contradicts the Rogerian belief in man’s natural goodness. The Bible teaches that,

“23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
Romans 3:23 (NASB)

Man is in not intrinsically good, but his nature was altered all the way back in the very beginning of human existence as stated in the verses of Genesis that began this writing. Except for God’s provision through His Son, Jesus Christ, and His finished work on the cross, man cannot overcome his fallen nature. The ultimate problem for mankind is not our childhood, our past, or the thwarting of our actualizing potential. Our problem is sin, and we cannot save ourselves. Taking the correspondent’s view of truth the Christian faith has the only real answers to our problems. That being the case, and it can be made with very strong evidence, then the humanistic view that we can find answers to our problems within ourselves and without God, is a bankrupt idea. So is there any hope for utilizing any of the ideas contained within humanistic psychology?

Humanistic thought should have very little use within the Christian counseling setting. For counselors to be true to Biblical teaching, they must jettison humanistic practices such as no boundaries, permissive therapy atmosphere, and nondirective therapy. The logical outcome of using these practices is a counseling practice that will have little resemblance to anything Biblical.


Works Cited
Buhler, C. (1972). Introduction to Humanistic Psychology. Bellmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Hobbes, T. (1898). The Ethics of Thomas Hobbes as Contained in Selections from His Works. Boston, MA, U.S.A.: Ginn & Company.
Jacobs, D. (2002). Psychology (Brain, Behavior, and Popular Culture) (4th Edition ed.). Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A.: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Rogers, C. (1980). A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
See, J. (1986). Applied Rehabilitation Counseling. (M. W. Riggar, Ed.) New York, NY, U.S.A.: Springer.

T

Edward Tolman

A New Formula For Behaviorism

This article represents Edward Tolman’s ideas about a new version of behaviorism that was to bring unity to the conflicts between cognitive psychology and behaviorist psychology. Tolman, although a methodological behaviorist, did not venture near the zealous ideas that B.F. Skinner promoted. To make it clear where he stood, Tolman issues his review of Watson’s version of Behaviorism, “he [Watson] says, will be the study of stimulus and response such that given the stimulus we can predict the response, and given the response we can predict the stimulus.” (Tolman, 1921) Tolman does not end his critique in just defining the idea; he offers an interesting quote from Watson,

“It is perfectly possible for a student of behavior entirely ignorant of the sympathetic nervous system and of the glands and smooth muscles or even of the central nervous system as a whole, to write a thoroughly comprehensive and accurate study of the emotions.” (Tolman, 1921)

Tolman’s response is how can someone ignorant of these things, “account for anything.” (Tolman, 1921) For the remainder of the article, Tolman lays out how his idea is to be structured.

He begins his theses by stating how non-physiological Behaviorism is possible. He goes on to maintain that this new Behaviorism will be capable of utilizing, “mental tests, objective measurements of memory, Animal Psychology, and valid results of Introspective Psychology.” (Tolman, 1921) He then differentiates between Introspective Psychology where consciousness is private and only observable by the individual, but that the information is not translated well, and Behavioral Psychology where the behavior or potential behavior is more easily observable.

Tolman finishes the article by covering the 4 concepts required to understand his new form of

Behaviorism. First he states the “Stimulating Agency” is the initiating cause of behavior, and it can come from various ways. It can come through sense organ stimulation, administering drugs, and it can be neurologically based. Once you have the Stimulus then the second part is the “Behavior-Cue.” The “Behavior-Cue” is the internal response, how we feel and process those feelings, our perceptions of color, shape, ect… Third is the “Behavior-Object.” The “Behavior-Object” is the process of afixing meaning to the “Behavior-Cue(s)” that are formed. This entire process leads us to the fourth concept called the “Behavior-Act.” The “Behavior-Act” is the observable, physical behavior. With this format, Tolman believed that the value in this idea rested in its ability to be more successful in treating patients.

I did find this reading to be enjoyable despite the arduous deciphering of the ideas presented. Of all that I have read, this short (five pages 10pt type) article proved to be one of the toughest so far. I think I enjoyed it so much because I can relate to the type of thought processes that, I believe, passed through Tolman’s mind. Trying to forge ahead with a new idea amidst detractors on all sides is very difficult, but sticking your neck out anyway and moving forward is somehow its own reward.

From a purely pragmatic view, I think Tolman was on to something. Taking the best of the experimental method, behavioral method, and introspective method seems like a good way to create a better environment for studying behavior. Tolman believed to understand behavior it would have to be seen as a system of interrelated functions. This idea seems very reasonable to me.

From a Christian perspective, as far as this article is concerned, I will briefly touch on a few problem issues. First, the doctrine on which Behaviorism rests is naturalistic. This means that the material world is the supreme truth, and everything can be accounted for through the expression of natural laws. That would imply that man has no soul and no mind, only a brain that responds to stimuli. Behaviorism relieves man of his responsibility, removes his dignity, and makes freedom impossible. He is reduced to a machine that is, “shaped” as Skinner might say, by those who are able to wield the implements of Behaviorism effectively.

I would like to end this paper with an interesting quote,

“Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.”

G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy, 1908

Tolman, E. C. (1921, August 5). A New Formula For Behaviorism. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from Classics in the History of Psychology: http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Tolman/formula.htm

T