The Bible Doesn't Say So | Dan McClellan | TEDxLone Star College

Key Concepts

• Inherent Meaning
• Meaning Generation (Two-Step Process)
• Linguistic Expressions
• Agreements (in communication)
• Cornsweet Effect
• Subconscious Mind's Influence
• Authoritative Texts
• Socially Constructed Convictions

The Illusion of Inherent Meaning in Texts

The speaker addresses a common misconception: that texts, particularly the Bible, inherently "say" something. This perspective is problematic because a text is merely a configuration of symbols; it cannot speak and does not possess inherent meaning. Meaning is not extracted from a text but is actively created in the mind of a reader, listener, or viewer. This concept, while counter-intuitive to many, is fundamental to understanding communication.

The Two-Step Process of Meaning Generation: The complex process of generating meaning from linguistic expressions can be simplified into two steps:

1. Potential Meaning Generation: The mind generates as many potential meanings as possible from a given linguistic expression. This is based on the individual's experiences with "agreements" – established relationships between specific linguistic expressions and specific semantic content or meaning.
2. Meaning Refinement: Using available cues, the mind then narrows down these potential senses to what it believes was most likely intended. For experienced readers, this process occurs so rapidly that it feels like meaning is directly transmitted from the text.

It is crucial to understand that the meaning generated is not inherent to the text, nor is it the only possible meaning. A text's symbols can be associated with a limitless number of meanings and shades of meanings, all dependent on these underlying "agreements." This principle explains how secret codes function. While we usually have a sufficient grasp of these agreements for successful communication, discrepancies in agreements across different times, places, people, and circumstances frequently lead to communication failures.

Real-World Examples of Communication Breakdown

The speaker provides two vivid examples to illustrate how differing "agreements" lead to miscommunication and misinterpretation.

1. The KFC "Biscuit" Incident: During his first week at the University of Oxford, the speaker entered a KFC on Corn Market Street and asked for "biscuits." The staff member was confused, as in the UK, "biscuit" refers to what Americans call a "cookie." The speaker realized that the combination of sounds "biscuit" evoked a different semantic content in the UK context compared to his American experience, where it would refer to a buttery, flaky baked good. This highlights how the same linguistic expression can have vastly different meanings based on cultural and regional agreements.

2. Misinterpreting Jude 22 in the King James Version (KJV): The verse from Jude 22 in the KJV reads: "But of some have compassion making a difference."

• Modern Interpretation: Most contemporary readers, based on their experience, interpret "making a difference" as having a positive impact or influence. This leads to the understanding that showing compassion can positively affect people's lives.
• Historical Context and Original Intent: The KJV was published in 1611. At that time, "to make a difference" meant "to make a distinction." This is supported by other KJV passages, such as Leviticus 11:47, which instructs Israelites to "make a difference between clean and unclean animals."
• Translators' Intended Meaning: The KJV translators intended to convey that one should be discerning about to whom compassion is shown.
• Conclusion: The overwhelming majority of modern KJV readers miss this original meaning because their contemporary experience with the phrase does not equip them with the necessary interpretive lens. This powerfully demonstrates that meaning is generated with a text based on our experiences, rather than being extracted as an inherent property. The speaker posits that while misinterpreting Jude 22 might not have significant consequences for most, the difficulty in accepting such a misunderstanding would be far greater if civil rights, healthcare, or employment depended on the common, yet incorrect, interpretation.

The Subconscious Mind and Authoritative Texts

A critical feature of how our minds generate meaning, especially with authoritative texts like the Bible, is the profound influence of our subconscious mind. Our life experiences, our place in the world, and our surrounding environment install numerous intuitions into our subconscious about "how things are supposed to work."

The Cornsweet Effect Illusion: The speaker uses the Cornsweet effect, a famous visual illusion, to illustrate this point. In this illusion, two objects appear to be different shades of gray but are, in fact, the exact same shade. By adding highlights, shadows, and a background to create the perception of a three-dimensional object in space, our minds are tricked. Our subconscious expects objects in light to be lighter and objects in shadow to be darker. Because the two objects are the same color, our minds subconsciously alter our perception to align it with these ingrained expectations. This demonstrates how the subconscious mind filters and modifies sensory and cognitive input to fit its pre-conditioned parameters.

Application to Biblical Interpretation: When individuals approach the Bible with deeply held experiences, assumptions, expectations, and dogmas about what it should or should not say, or the values it should or should not endorse, their subconscious mind predisposes them to construct and defend meanings that protect their self-image and their standing within important social identities.

Societal Implications and Call to Critical Thinking

This phenomenon has significant implications for contemporary social issues that people attempt to resolve using the Bible, such as LGBTQIA+ rights, nationalism, the role of women, environmentalism, vaccines, contraception, abortion, child discipline, the role of religion in government, and eschatology. The speaker argues that our convictions on these issues are "overwhelmingly socially constructed." When these convictions are brought to the Bible, they intuitively govern how we construct meaning.

Therefore, when someone declares, "This is right because the Bible says so," it is, in essence, "us saying so." We are leveraging the perceived authority of the Bible to grant divine inspiration and authority to convictions that are primarily shaped by our own experiences and relationships. This practice has historically led to "untold anxiety, conflict, trauma, oppression, abuse, and even death for millennia."

Conclusion and Call to Action: To overcome societal division and confusion, the speaker urges a shift towards critical thinking. We must learn to recognize and analyze how everything we bring to the Bible influences our reading of it. Furthermore, it is essential to develop the discipline to resist the impulse to appeal to the Bible's authority merely to "baptize our own intuitions and our own dogmas." The speaker concludes with a powerful statement: "The Bible doesn't say so. And the sooner we realize this, the sooner we can elevate our thinking, our communities, and our future."