by Myron Horst
Click here to read Part 1.
The Dangers of Analogies
Donald Simanek, physics professor at Lock Haven University, wrote and an excellent article on the dangers of analogies (click here to read). His perspective is from the field of physics, in which there are many concepts that are in the abstract and can’t be visualized. Some of his observations are helpful in understanding the danger of using analogies because many spiritual concepts also cannot be visualized in concrete form. His perspective helps us understand why analogies can be more harmful than helpful in giving people true understanding of a concept. The following are some excerpts from the article with my comments following:
“The notion is widespread among teachers, especially at the introductory levels of physics, that use of analogies to get across concepts is a “good thing.” Actually, I (who have taught both introductory and advanced courses) think that it’s a very risky practice, which usually leads to concepts, ideas and thinking habits that must later be painfully unlearned…”
My observation, too, is that the use of analogies in teaching results in concepts, ideas, and thinking habits that must later be painfully unlearned. For years I did not understand that it was analogies that were causing the problem in my children of not being able to think through things properly, and so I tried to correct the problem by using more analogies. Now to change the thinking process of using analogies is a difficult process.
“… there’s the far more sinister “argument by analogy” in which a comparison is invoked in order to derive a conclusion. It takes the form “Because M has properties A, B and C, then if N has properties A and B, it also has C.” Stated in this stark way, its absurdity as a “method of argument” is obvious, for it can be used to conclude things that are patently false. The dangers of thinking by analogy are noted by nearly every book on logic, argument, and debate…”
“But analogies should never be used as arguments to reach a conclusion, and should never substitute for reason and logic. The examples we will discuss are those that are harmful in physics teaching because they encourage lazy and sloppy habits of thought…”
The use of analogies in logic or teaching can be dangerous because analogies can be used by false teachers, such as Bill Gothard, to deceive us into coming to the wrong conclusions. It is important that we study the facts and understand the facts of a subject rather than trying to compare two dissimilar things to arrive at understanding and conclusions.
“Visualization is also an analogy, which students often use as a crutch. Pictures we draw of atoms, wave functions, etc., are always incomplete and potentially misleading. One of the difficulties students have with advanced physics is that they have become dependent on visual models. When they encounter physics that can’t be visualized, and for which pictures can’t be drawn, they experience severe cognitive dissonance. This is when they consider majoring in something simpler and more concrete. Before we draw any picture we should remember that it is another dangerous analogy!…”
Bill Gothard used a lot of drawings to illustrate what he was teaching and led us to the wrong conclusions, such as his concept of the “umbrella of authority.” It is important that we also identify illustrations as potentially dangerous analogies that can be used to deceive us into having the wrong conclusions and thought processes.
“Do analogies permanently harm our students’ understanding of physics? After all, physics is taught as a series of revelations: successive approximations supposedly getting closer and closer to the ever-elusive “truth.” Better students cope with this quite nicely; they have what it takes to become physics majors. Others may learn just enough physics, mostly incorrect, to be dangerous if they actually tried to apply it. Fortunately they usually never have to apply it in a creative manner. They choose “procedure intensive” jobs where they blindly follow established practice without needing genuine understanding. This, I am convinced, is responsible for many technological mistakes, blunders and even disasters, [and] is one reason for so much professional malpractice litigation, and for the high cost of liability and malpractice insurance.” (emphasis added)
I too have observed that training people to think in analogies often results in them not being able to reason properly. One of the reasons that I wanted to farm was so that I could teach my children how to work, to see what needed to be done, to be able to think through what they were doing, and to be efficient in being able to get much accomplished. I realized that if they knew how to work and how to think through what they were doing they could be successful in whatever career God called them into. But after 14 years of training them on the farm, and daily working side by side with them, I felt like often they were still only able to do “procedure intensive” tasks that they had done repetitively. Jobs that needed understanding and creative thinking usually required my close supervision. I rebuked, disciplined, explained in great detail, all to little avail in helping them to have true understanding and to apply their minds to their task.
When I realized that I had messed up their thinking process by training them in ATI and at home to think in analogies, I had to repent and ask their forgiveness. The mistake of training with analogies has been a great grief to me. Since we have recognized the problem of analogies, I feel like we are finally making real progress. They are applying their minds more to what needs to be done and to creative solutions to projects. This has convinced me even more of the dangers of training using analogies.
Other Failures of the ATI Program
In 2005, God directed our family to leave the ATI program. We were seeing some of the failures of the ATI program, that many of the young people who had completed or almost completed the ATI program did not have the wisdom, education, and character that their parents had tried to instill in them. Not only was the program producing the opposite results of what it was supposed to in understanding, there were many other ways in which the program was producing opposite results of what Bill Gothard had stated. Sure, we saw some families where the children appeared to be turning out well, but there were too many families where we saw and are seeing the following results:
- Instead of turning the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, the ATI program created division in many families. In a number of families, the parents and adult children were not on speaking terms.
- Instead of producing ideal happy families, we were seeing and hearing about family conflict and rebellion.
- Instead of model “five star families” or “noble families,” there was shame because of the way some of the children turned out and the foolish choices that they made when they became adults.
- Jim Voeller, who was Director of ATI during part of our time in the ATI program, committed one of the most serious failures and sins a father can do to his family. In 2001, he abandoned his wife and large family, and married his young personal ATI secretary with whom he had been having an ongoing affair.
- Instead of producing men and women who were mighty in spirit and changing the world, many ATI young men and young women were changed by the world.
- Instead of producing young women who had a bright countenance, many young women had their spirits damaged by sexual abuse and sexual harassment. In addition, they were damaged by emotional and spiritual abuse with false guilt, false blame, and false responsibility being put on them for the immoral sins of men and boys.
- ATI’s modest, “higher standard” dress standard has been a failure in preventing immorality. Instead of preventing sexual immorality with its conservative modest dress, the ATI program’s dress standards created a safe haven for sexual predators and gave sexual predators opportunities to sexually abuse many boys and girls. The focus on modest dress and “dresses only” does not prevent sexual abuse, but instead seems to be a contributing factor in sexual abuse. This is a pattern that can be seen as we look at a number of other conservative religious groups that have a focus on conservative, modest, and dresses-only standards where the sexual abuse of both boys and girls is much higher than what the leaders would have ever thought possible.From my research, among some conservative Mennonite and Amish groups the sexual abuse rate of both boys and girls appears to be even higher than it is in the rest of society. There is not space in this short article to go into detail explaining why conservative “modest” dress standards promote such gross immorality. That is being explained in a 300+ page book I am writing on The Failure of the Great Amish and Conservative Mennonite Dress Experiment. God tells us that conservative, manmade dress standards will not work: “Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in ANY honour to the satisfying of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:23) And yet we were deceived into thinking that conservative dress standards would work in preventing immorality. “Let God be true and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4)
God tells us: “Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respects not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.” (Psalms 40:4) Bill Gothard spoke vanity. He talked as if he had THE answers that would give a person success if they followed his steps of action. We are realizing now that much of it was vain talk that did not and could not produce success. The Recovering Grace website has exposed how Bill Gothard has had a pattern of lying for many years. These two things alone, vanity and lying, in a teacher, will produce the opposite results in our children of what we desire. In the Bible we are told: “Rid me, and deliver me from the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood: That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be as corner stones, polished after the similitude of a palace:’ (Psalms 144:11-12)
With the designer and head of the ATI program exhibiting both vanity and lying, one should not expect that the ATI curriculum and homeschool program can produce many wise young men and women who are mature in their youth and who are trained to be the leaders in their generation.
The following passage also describes Bill Gothard: “Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee: and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn away thy captivity; but have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment.” (Lamentations 2:14)
Unfortunately, “Bill Got-her 2″ (Bill Gothard Jr.) got me and got many others also and taught us the opposite of how to think and how to have wisdom and understanding. We now have to apply more effort to make the necessary corrections, to unlearn the wrong things that we have learned and to learn what we should have learned the first time.
Where do we go from here, knowing that we have trained our children with the false education concept of using analogies, or that you have been trained in ATI to think in analogies? While we may be tempted to curse Bill Gothard and the ATI program and feel in despair over many wasted years, God has given us as human beings a lot of resiliency to be able to make the necessary changes once we have identified our mistake. God also tells us that as Christians, it is not wasted years. He tells us, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)
Recognizing the error of using analogies is a huge step toward correcting our thinking because now we know what the problem is and what needs to be changed. We as human beings can make changes relatively quickly once we know what needs to be changed. It is important to ask God to show you how He wants you to correct the problem and to correct your thinking or your children’s thinking processes. Each person is a unique individual and some will need more or different help than others. One place to start is to learn to keep your mind focused on the main point and not allow it to be distracted to other subjects, thoughts, or analogies while another person is talking. Learn to ask specific questions to clarify what the other person has said.
Being deceived by Bill Gothard and ATI was not a waste of time. I see it as some very important training and preparation for us and our descendants for the end times. A person who has been deceived by a false teacher and discovers it will be much more wary about being deceived again. There is a saying: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” I would much rather be deceived by Bill Gothard and correct my error than to be deceived by the Antichrist and false prophet of Revelation. Jesus warned us: “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24) We are also told, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10)
Yes, we were deceived by Bill Gothard, but we are no more! Read just the words in bold first: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.” (Hebrews 6:1-3)
Please feel free to copy or distribute this article. Click here to visit the original post.
Editor’s note: For more on this subject, read Don Veinot’s thoughts on this article at Midwest Christian Outreach.
Photo copyright: / 123RF Stock Photo
August 21, 2020
Is there any info on who helped Bill put this whole program together? What educators did he or didn't he use? Likewise are there any sort of hard core numbers or stats on children who actually completed the whole program and where they ended up? Were they ever able to find employee outside of his ministry? Again I have a feeling all of this is shrouded in mystery and secrecy.
I'm going to jump in and stick up for analogies.
Myron, you raise the point that an analogy for the thing isn't the thing, and if you're going to really understand the thing you have to actually learn about the thing itself. I agree with this. Your example of teaching physics to people who are going to be physicists illustrates this point well.
Once it's established that analogies – all types of metaphor, really – cannot be substituted for learning directly about something, I don't think they need to be written off as tools for education. Schrödinger didn't cause his cat to be actually alive and dead. Spacetime is not actually a rubber sheet that everything sits on. But both these ideas are/involve metaphors which are useful in helping people understand really difficult concepts in physics.
Obviously, they are not enough to make you a physicist. The promise that they could is, if I understand correctly, the abuse of metaphor that you are writing about. Gothard definitely left (held?) the door open to that abuse.
I don't think it necessarily follows that abusing the proper use of analogies means that analogies inhibit creative thinking. On the contrary, I credit ATI's emphasis on analogies as a key part of the development of my own creativity. After all, what is creativity other than making new/unexpected connections between things? We humans cannot create ex nihilo.
I'm not a fan of ATI. Bill did me a lot of harm via his surrogates and his ridiculous rules for life. But learning to think in analogies was one really good part of ATI for me. I often disagreed vehemently with the approved analogies but I found the form and the discipline of them invigorating.
I'm taking the time to write this because I think metaphor and image are essential to making meaning in the world. We are storytelling beings. Metaphors and images are two of the most important tools of storytelling. I'm relatively certain this wasn't your intended meaning but as I read your posts I found myself thinking, so do we throw out poetry, music, novels, visual art? All of these things are made of metaphor. All of them are useful in endless ways for teaching. Of course no metaphor is complete. Often learning to see what the metaphor hides is as important as understanding what it reveals.
Finally, if we are to consider metaphors dangerous, how do we approach Paul when he writes that the church is the body of Christ? Is there some kind of weird Voltron thing going on, or is this a metaphor? What about marriage as a metaphor for Christ and the church? The church as a building? I could list a dozen biblical examples of where the point of the metaphor is to enlighten, not to obfuscate. God is unseen. We cannot honestly speak of God or God's kingdom without resorting to metaphor sooner rather than later.
Thank you. I couldn't agree more.
There is something else which has the power to awaken us to the truth. It is the works of writers of genius. . . . They give us, in the guise of fiction, something equivalent to the actual density of the real, that density which life offers us every day but which we are unable to grasp because we are amusing ourselves with lies. “Morality and Literature" Simone Weil
Bill Gothard used analogies in a way that amused others with his lies. Yet there are countless others who use them to paint a clearer picture of our fallen condition and in so doing moves us to love deeper the One who loves us perfectly.
Jeff,
Your thoughts nailed it. My negative experiences with ATI/IBLP were all centered around the bullet-point list of other problems. Were analogies too big a deal? Were there bad analogies? Maybe and Yes. For my family, we never really turned our education into a big analogy fest. Maybe some families did and that might inform the negative reactions.
Also, to the author: FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST--don't resort to using Scripture out of context like a certain older gentleman did to the harm of tens of thousands. Hebrews 6:1-3 has absolutely nothing to do with ATI, Bill Gothard, or the "seven basic principles." The context is the "elementary principles" of substitutionary atonement, the covenants, and Christ's role in those things and moving to the weighty matters of living as citizens in the Kingdom of Jesus.
I agree here, too. We sometimes forget that even the apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament in the New Testament (which comes from Christ Himself--see Luke 24:27, 44-47) is largely typological (a type of analogy). For example, where in the OT is the "prophecy" of Christ's rising on the third day Christ mentions in Luke 24:46? The answer is found in Matthew 12:40 where we find Jonah as a "type" of Christ. This is the only reference in the OT to Christ's "three days" in the tomb. Accordingly, the early Church Fathers read the Scriptures in a much more anagogic and typological manner than modern Christians tend to do. From what I have read here, I suspect the real problem with the ATi curriculum is not that it used analogy, but that its analogies were as false as its theological presuppositions.
That said, from an Orthodox Christian perspective, that the Church is the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ are more than mere metaphors. Otherwise, the Scriptures would teach that the Church is like the body of Christ or like His bride. Rather, Paul says the Church is Christ's Body, and indeed His "fullness" (Ephesians 1:23). This has classically been understood within the Church as a "mystical" (mysteriological/sacramental) experiential spiritual reality of the Church's union with Christ as her Head experienced in her midst through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
This is what Dorothy L. Sayers (writer of the Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries) said about analogies in her Christian apologetics book, 'The Mind of the Maker':
'The fact is, that all language about everything is analogical; we think in a series of metaphors. We can explain nothing in terms of itself, but only in terms of other things. Even mathematics can express itself in terms of itself only so long as it deals with an ideal system of pure numbers; the moment it begins to deal with numbers of things it is forced back into the language of analogy. In particular, when we speak about something of which we have no direct experience, we must think by analogy or refrain from thought... Similarly the physicist, struggling to interpret the alien structure of the atom, finds himself obliged to consider it sometimes as a "wave" and sometimes as a "particle." He knows very well that both these terms are analogical - they are metaphors, "picture-thinking," and , as pictures, they are incompatible and mutually contradictory. But he need not on that account refrain from using them for what they are worth...
When we use these expressions, we know perfectly well that they are metaphors and analogies; what is more, we know perfectly well where the metaphor begins and ends.' [The ellipsis are due to the constraints of space - I highly recommend reading the entire book.]
I would say that the last sentence I quoted is where ATI's analogies failed. They didn't treat the analogy as being limited and drew too many conclusions. It is not an uncommon problem in Christian circles - witness those who try to make detailed allegories out of Christ's parables.
But to be sure, I don't think ATI's greatest weakness was in its use of analogies. Its real weakness lay in the pride and self-sufficiency which said we can learn nothing from the way the world educates (ignoring the fact that Christians played a large part in developing Western education methods and standards) and we will re-invent the wheel and raise our children God's way. Even Paul knew better than that; he quoted pagan writers not only on Mars Hill, but also in his epistle to Titus - clearly he thought it worth his while to learn from the secular world.
Well said. Quiet one.
The biggest failure of ATI is that it robbed us of the opportunity to learn the great legacy of literature, art, etc.
We all bought in the teachings from a proud , false teacher, Bill Gothard who demonized what he called the 'secular educational system'.
How I wish I had been exposed earlier to the wrings of the "Oxford Christians' , or inkling which includes writers like CS Lewis (Allegory of Love, The Discarded Image, the Experiment in Criticism), Owen Barfield (Saving the Appearances, The Rediscovery of Meaning), Charles Williams (The Descent of the Dove), and the famous JRR Tolkien (Lord of the Rings, Tree and Leaf).
Gothard's simplification of life into principles was a lie that gets a "lieralness-mided" generation to get into the mold of mechanically solving complicated issues of life.
The result? Those who implemented the teachings are bearing the fruits of brokenness, barrennes, joylessness.
"The precious life may not be spoken about exclusively in terms of problem and solution, because we are thus tempted to overlook the limitations of the very existence of initial arbitrary rule that makes the playing of it possible." -Dorothy Sayers (Letters to a Diminished Church))
God is the giver of Life; He is Life himself. Outside of Him, there is no Life. That is why apostle Paul encourages us to abide in Him.
Wake up from a blind , proud, and false teacher who is leading the blind.
Jeff,
One of the things that I had thought about adding before Recovering Grace posted the article, (I did not know they were going to post the article. I originally submitted the article way back in July of 2014) was that I come from the unique perspective of both being the educator as well as the employer of the ones that I helped educate. Many home school parents and educators never really see from an employer's perspective the day to day details of how the people that they educated are able to perform in the work environment. It was as I worked beside my sons day after day, that I realized that the superior education that I thought I had given them had negatively affected them.
I just asked my sons if they realized that analogies had negatively affected them before we found out about the dangers of using analogies. My 26 year old son said that no, he thought then that analogies were actually helpful, just like you indicated they have been for yourself. However, after they realized what the consequences of an education curriculum based on analogies had had on their lives, they no longer have the same perspective of analogies.
As I indicate in Part 1, analogies are not all bad. They have a place, they can be a limited aid in thinking as long as we understand the dangers of analogies.
Like many other false teachings in the church today that end up with the opposite results of what is expected, what Bill Gothard told us about how superior an education we would give our children by basing a curriculum around analogies ended up with the opposite results of what we were told.
The ATI curriculum is a dud of curriculum that few who have been educated in ATI will use it to educate their children.
Thanks for your reply, Myron. I can't comment in the experience of your family. That is your experience. I can state unequivocally that in the 21 years sice I left ATI, the teaching I got about analogies has been very useful to me. I am a children's pastor, graphic designer, artist and parent. Every one of those vocations requires a great deal of creativity. I know what I'm talking about when I say that I find the ability to think in analogies useful.
I don't claim that analogies help me think logically. Math, especially geometry, helped me most with that. But as long as you don't conflate analogies with logic or knowledge, they, as with all metaphors, are beautiful tools for creative thinking.
One last thing. You wrote: 'The use of analogies in logic or teaching can be danigerous because analogies can be used by false teachers…' You could really substitute anything for 'analogies' in that sentence: The use of the bible in logic or teaching can be dangerous because the bible can be used by false teachers… Or: The use of words in logic or teaching can be dangerous because words can be used by false teachers…
Our ability to make metaphors is a major part of what makes us human. I hope Gothard's abuse of analogy doesn't sour you on them for life.
Actually, Jeff, the reason analogies can be dangerous are explained at the beginning of this article where Donald Simanek talks about the dangers of "argument by analogy". Analogies can be used to lead us to very wrong conclusions.
I remember a tape of Ray Comfort speaking in, I believe, 2003 at the Knoxville Conference. He told a story of a firefighter who sat in the fire truck listening to a CD while people in the burning building outside the truck were screaming for help. I think some of them died. Ray asked what judgment you would give this firefighter. Then he said something like, "If you aren't witnessing, you are that firefighter."
Hmmm... arguably, God is also that firefighter for failing to send His Son immediately after the fall to ransom Adam and Eve, and for waiting till Jesus was 33 years old to have Him crucified, instead of having Him killed as a baby--at least according to Ray's definition.
The point is, people can easily use analogies to guilt-trip us, and to lead us to totally wrong conclusions. One example of this is Bill's "Umbrella of Protection" analogy. Another is his Hammer-and-Chisel analogy.
Yet another example is this one: "You eat every day, don't you? Well, reading your Bible is how you eat spiritually. So if you don't read your Bible for several days, you are starving yourself spiritually." This guilt trip ignores the fact that God has not commanded us to read the Bible daily, has not said that reading the Bible is the only way that we are fed spiritually, and that there are many Christians today who have no Bible to read. But it can be a powerful means of guilt-tripping people into daily Bible reading, or even making a vow to read the Bible daily, as Bill encouraged.
Another danger of analogies is that the person may have used the analogy in a limited way that was pretty accurate, but someone who does not understand the limits of the analogy may come to very wrong conclusions. For example, the parable of the wheat and the tares could be taken to the conclusion that the children of the kingdom are Christians from the time that they are conceived, and the children of the devil are already damned before they draw their first breath. Were this the case, evangelism would be unnecessary.
Analogies are not sin by any means. God has used them over and over in the Bible. One night, He gave me an analogy in a dream that has helped me to understand how to keep my bees healthy. However, whenever other people use analogies, we must beware that we are not led astray by wrong analogies.
Joel Horst (Myron's son)
These comments by Myron and Joel seem to really reinforce Jeff's and my points, which is the problem is NOT analogy per se, which as has been pointed out have been abundantly used by the Lord and His prophets and apostles in the Scriptures (and continuing in that tradition, the Church Fathers).
The problem is rather false analogies and/or the abuse/misuse of analogies. From what I have seen, I would say it is the abuse and misuse of not only analogies, but also reason, the findings of science, and the Scriptures themselves are the problem with BG's false teachings. Gothard is a false teacher. THAT is the real problem here.
this is in reply to Joel, the analogy about a fireman sitting in on his truck listening to CD while a fire is going on and people are dying is so totally false and completely unrealistic and even insulting to those brave men and women in this dangerous career. If this was an actual analogy used at some conference, then you have demonstrated very well the problem with heavy reliance on analogies, false analogies like this lead to false conclusions. Bill's use of these unsubstantial stories to prove his so called non-optional "Biblical" truths or principals demonstrates that he was neither truthful or Biblical.
In reply to Karen, I understand what you and Jeff are trying to say but there is a difference between parable teaching which uses analogies to convey spiritual truths and what happen with ATI which based a whole education systems on it's use. How is one to discern abuse of analogies from the real?
It sounds like the issue isn't so much with analogies, but rather with a form of false equivalence employed in the use of analogies. Because our culture has been so conditioned to think in such concrete terms and to focus on the externally visible, it can be very easy to buy into unsound analogies or illustrations without thinking about what's not being said.
Rob, I don't think you and I disagree at all. I accept that all of BG's use of analogy was false.
How to discern the true from the false analogy (and by extension true from false teaching) is a very good question--especially when we have been raised to accept Scripture as our ultimate "authority" and the false teacher is using Scripture to back up his teaching. I'd be interested to hear the stories of those who came to discern the falsity of BG's teaching.
We have to recognize Scripture has to be interpreted and what is being presented as "Scriptural" is really only as solid as its interpretation is faithful to the message the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and apostles to convey through the written word, and as I attempted to demonstrate briefly earlier using verses from Luke 24, this is not necessarily found merely at the literal level of the Scriptures, nor is it necessarily found in the intent of the original human author. What we need perhaps to ask is where can we go to find reliable Holy Spirit inspired interpretation of Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)?
I would say listening to the Holy Spirit in one's own heart witnessing to a proper interpretation of Scripture or convicting one of the falsity of a line of reason being presented to us is key. The Holy Spirit is our ultimate "Authority" and He speaks and convicts from within as well as through external sources of authority. He is the only truly authoritative Interpreter of the Scriptures. If we don't listen to Him in our consciences, it is hard for those speaking in accordance with His leading from outside us to get our attention.
In reply to Karen, I agree, I think we are taking different angles to this.
As a Catholic, I agree with what you are saying about looking at what is the traditional teaching or view starting with the earliest Church fathers. I think I am looking at the use of analogies from just a pure educational teaching tool. I think that is my concern with ATI. Again, I would agree with the rest of what you have posted as I usually do.
Myron, thanks for making us think. I think the discussion shows that we all should fear the misuse and over-dependency on analogy. I do agree that B.G. "sold" us on a false notion: that precepts did not have to be taught but could be absorbed by osmosis while analogies would teach us all truth. (Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?)
As a substitute for logical discourse, ATI material was clearly a failure. I especially like the reference in this discussion to false equivalency. In politics and other forms of false teaching, it is a grave means of lying and slander, people on the right and left wallow in it to the degree that they are completely impervious to reason: My enemies are all the devil. My friends are all the messiah. (Fingers in my ears) blah, blah, blah...
"God has given us as human beings a lot of resiliency to be able to make the necessary changes once we have identified our mistake."
I love this ^^^ statement!
It's grace recovering.
So true...it's never too late to recuperate in the area of education. You may not get a Phd., but there are still so many things out there. I have worked with non-literate refugee adults who have learned English here in the States, gone on to get a GED, and then a professional or college degree. If you are informed enough to know what is lacking in your education, get out there and educate yourself!
As to analogies, they have a place, but you also need some information to process analogies. This is why I find that they are not always the best for teaching young children. If the teacher needs to give ten minutes of background information before introducing the story, then he/she needs a different, more concrete analogy!
what ATI and others may have failed to realize is that people learn in different ways. My husband learns by hearing. I have to learn by seeing. Some learn hands on and there are yet other ways that people grasp knowledge. A good teacher tries to make lesson plans that address all the ways different children learn.
One Bill fits all.
Is a better term perhaps "illustrations"? By that I mean stories and anecdotes rather than logical relationship comparisons. Until the last few years, analogies were a separate section on the SAT and were a measure of intelligence.(Questions required students to identify part to whole or progression relationships before getting the answer.) My understanding is that they were dropped from the SAT because college bound students are no longer taught to think logically.
The SAT in years past was more of a test of potential, while the ACT was more of a test of achievement, but now they have much more of an over-lapping focus. I'm not sure that Gothard' s myriad of stories and illustrations involved enough proper logic to be termed as true analogies though he may have indeed hijacked the term to give credence to his conclusions.
One suspects he hijacked anything and everything to assert credence for himself. I think the distracting nature of analogies (or illustrations) helps explain why the seminars were so difficult to resist. The mere volume of plausibility left the hearer with no time or energy to ask the questions necessary to get to the truth.
It seems to me that everyone here is largely in agreement, but expressing things differently.
Two other things come to mind:
1. Not only is Gothard a false teacher, but he is poor at teaching. In part because…
2. A good teacher would have humility to reason with his students as to why the analogy breaks down, as they all do. Such reasoning can be quite instructive. A challenging example of this is trying to find an analogy for the Trinity...a simple example from nature that helps us see that such a relationship makes sense. Compared to a triune God, no analogy seems to hold up. But “why not” can lead to an interesting discussion.
Today I read John 7:18… "He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true...” Another translation says, “If a man speaks his own words, constantly quoting himself, he is after adulation.”
Humble teachers will be true and point out as best they can the weaknesses in their analogies. Can anyone share with us an example of Gothard explaining how his analogies are flawed?
A very good article posted in this site had a systematic analysis of Gothard's inappropriate hermeneutics https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/10/a-call-for-discernment/ .
Gothard can not get his hermeneutics right, largely because he is too proud to learn the literary styles which had been studied by many scholars. It requires diligent disciplines of academic studies , and intellectual thinking which he downplays as secularism in the first place.
Hermeneutics implies the truth is in the text. Proof-texting merely uses (abuses?) the text to prove the teacher's conviction.
If you haven't read the article by Donald Simanek linked at the beginning of this article, I highly recommend that you do so. Simanek explains how teaching with analogies ultimately hinders students from fully understanding the subject, and is also a barrier to logical thinking. In the article, he points out some actual examples of how various analogies in physics hinder students from fully grasping physics. In fact, in some cases, it may hinder their creative and inventive abilities.
Teaching with analogies also encourages the students' minds to wander off, following the trail of the analogy, even after the teacher comes back to the main subject. My observation is that analogies in Sunday School cause the discussion to wander off from the main point, sometimes for way too long, as the various participants discuss the various points of the analogy and where it leads.
As a side note on the analogy of the fireman sitting in the truck, listening to a CD, Ray Comfort presented it as an actual news story. I don't know if it's true or not, but here's his presentation of it in January 7, 2003. When I Googled the story, I was unable to find an actual news write up of the incident, but I did find multiple occurrences of Ray telling the story. Go figure.
Joel, I assume the post and your comment here pertains to relying only on analogies or failing to also clearly articulate the limitations of any analogy one uses (regardless of subject, whether physical sciences or theology). We cannot use only analogy, even where the analogy may in some sense be faithful to what we are trying to express. I have no argument with that.
My point of reference for all this is how God's revelation in Christ has been handled in the Orthodox-Catholic Christian tradition of the early Church. The Orthodox tradition is big on what is known as "apophatic" theology. That is, while also making positive theological statements about the nature of God in their verbal expressions of the faith, the Church Fathers were also keen to acknowledge what this did NOT mean and what God was NOT. Positive statements about God's attributes in Scripture are always analogical for us. Take, for instance, the Apostle John's statement, "God is love." Absent an experiential encounter with God Himself through the Holy Spirit, we only know what "love" means from the human relationships in which we experience it, thus God's "love" is often expressed in Scripture in terms of that of a husband for his bride or a mother for her child, etc., yet God is not "love" in any limited and merely human sense, and merely human husbandly or parental love fall far short of the divine reality demonstrated in Christ not just in quantity, but also quality, and so the theologian to be accurate must also say "God is not love" in any limited merely human sense. In this way, the nature of God as wholly Other and completely distinct from any category within creation is preserved from anthropomorphic distortions. In this way, placing limits on what can be known about God from analogy (and all language about God in Scripture is analogical) is inherent in the classical patristic theological tradition. Ultimately, our understanding of what any Scriptural language about God really means will be limited by the extent of our actual experiential encounter with Him.
Thank-you for the link to his so called analogy. Sorry but one should be able to find the story in the news somewhere. But, if I place bets, I would bet that this whole thing isn't true at all. Firemen and women are just too well trained to have someone play around in a truck with a new CD system while at a major fire. It most likely isn't true and points to the realization that many of these stories were not real or true or accurate.
A lot of commonly used analogies are based on trumped up or falsified stories. Possibly one teacher says "like" presenting a fictional account, then someone else repeats it as factual account. The first may not intend to mislead and the next may not knowingly mislead, but only misremembered the story. First thing you know, people are hanging their faith on a false story and the credibility of a teacher who is nothing worse than a poor rememberer.
Alas.
Karen, thank you for your thoughtful contributions. Such traditions, long practiced and well understood, are a bulwark against faddish, pop "truths" that scratch our itching ears. Giving the world a "better" way is quite the opposite.
Do you mean that a lot of the commonly used IBLP analogies are false stories then? If this speaker at IBLP used this analogy since 2003, two years after 9/11 when over 300 firefighters lost their lives is a bit much. If real, I am sure that this type of story during that time frame would have made national news. But Joel's search turns up nothing. I honestly can't believe and I am surprised that no one had the guts to say hey wait a minute, where is the proof of this. To use some example from New York City no less. I know this is a little off the topic but again it is on topic because false conclusions come from false analogies and since ATI seems to be based on it's use then I rest my case. Someone ought to contact IBLP or wherever this is being posted on the internet to have them pull it for credibility sake. I also think the man quoting this to use as a club about religious commitment needs to apologize to New York City firefighters for this lie.
I am sorry, I was not referring to ATI analogies, but simply an observation I have made as many stories cross from one ministry/organization to another. As Myron says, when the focus turns to the analogy, the lesson is lost. It is a bad analogy only in part because it slanders an unnamed (and likely non-existent) firefighter. But teachers slander unnamed persons everyday (making themselves look superior in comparison) and there are many other problems with the firefighter analogy that others have pointed out.
So much of all this was simply motivational baloney, trying to get us to do stuff just like a salesman tries to get you to buy stuff you don't need.
But my point was how a story that may have started as fiction can become a false story presented as truth by a teacher who does not check sources or verify information. I mean, who should care about truth or credibility if a good story (or chalk drawing) "teaches" the lesson??
"...the students' minds to wander off, following the trail of the analogy..."
Joel, an observation - you used a metaphor to explain :-)
And so does Simanek when he says "Our goal should be 'Throw away your crutches.'" I wonder if his use of "crutch" would pass all of his own tests for using analogies.
It seems to me that using images and comparisons is woven into our process of thinking in a very fundamental way. I have not followed all the comments in this thread closely, so perhaps what I am retreading ground that has already been covered.
This was a thoughtful and thought-provoking article. A new thought to me, that perhaps the use of analogy itself was a poisoned root. I have assumed that the problem was Gothard's use of the tool, not the tool itself.
There is no way I could keep up with Simanek in a physics discussion, let alone mount an argument based on physics that is likely to persuade him. I do not wish to seem arrogant by failing to be convinced.
But from my perspective, I would respectfully say that I think Simanek takes his thesis too far.
I believe that images, metaphors, comparisons, and the like are inextricably woven into the nature of how we think. The biblical book of Proverbs, not unlike its contemporary ancient Near Eastern (ANE) wisdom literature, uses image, comparison, and contrast extensively. Jesus used short stories and images to make points that continue to instruct and intrigue to the present day.
It seems to me that part of wisdom, at least as employed by us humans, is the process of considering how two things are at once different and alike. I suspect that there is an issue of different styles of thinking. Some people will naturally think more in images and visual comparisons while others will naturally be drawn to numbers and other raw data.
To push back against Simanek, and again, I don't mean to be disrespectful, he offers a series of strident tests meant to allow a small contingent of analogies through, and he seems hesitant about giving too much credence even to those that pass. But he sums up his own point with a clear and pointed image that communicates well: we should cast away our mental crutches. His own instinct to use such an image is telling.
I think it is possible that at a fundamental level, his entire article is itself an analogy. He constructs an argument based on physics that analogies can be problematic in truly understanding a concept or phenomenon. And by analogy to physics, the reader is meant to conclude that therefore analogies throughout the education process are dangerous.
I say this having read his article at a superficial level, not truly digging in and digesting it. I did take calculus-based university physics but its been years and I'm rusty at best with it. I was taught the concept of polarization using similar explanations to which he objects, and indeed, it is surprising to me that a third polarized lens has the effect described.
He clearly has a point! And I am certain that he would be entirely unpersuaded by my concerns, but I feel that he is taking a real concern and driving it too far and too hard in one direction. I would be truly impressed if he could engage this argument with those who are as capable in the areas of literature, particularly wisdom literature, and of hermeneutics, and in that arena construct an argument that stands, that makes such a strong case against the use of analogy itself.
Having said all that, a basic point of agreement with this article for me is that Gothard did use analogies in a fundamental and a fundamentally damaging way.
I recall at a dinner in the Northwoods, one candle nearer the door was burning much more vigorously than other candles further into the room. It was smoking and consuming the wax faster. Bill stood and challenged those in the room to present analogies from this candle to real life. The ensuing logical wrangling was not nearly as much about true wisdom as it was in impressing Bill with analogies that would please him. And I think that very process is illustrative of the ethos of the ATI program.
Bill's use of analogies were a foundational part of IBLP and ATI, and they were often misleading at best.
Apologies for spamming this morning.
I heard Bill explain in one of the youth sessions that we all think through a grid. It was his mission not just to give us as students a set of thoughts, but to deconstruct and reconstruct our very mental grids. That was perhaps my first introduction to the concept of worldview (in Bill's own terms, and used for his own purposes). What he said seemed to make so much sense and I proceeded to attempt to adopt whatever mental grid it was that Bill was selling. I was making a choice to substitute my own perception of the world and of reality with what Bill said it should be. And that is the very sort of thing that causes people to say now that he was in reality leading a cult.