If the following from my previous post in this series is true, then an acknowledgment must be made about how we construct theology:
What we “see” in the world, then, is really a function of our brain, an image that integrates past experiences, memory, cultural learning and other multi-sensory information. What a person perceives or sees is not the world. It is actually a prediction of what should be in the world based on what a person has experienced. This prediction is constantly tested by action. (1)
We must understand that our theology is culturally constructed. Culture provides framing, which in sociological and communication terms is a schema for determining interpretation and how we make meaning out of life. For instance, among those in the LDS sect recently raided in Texas, many were born into that sect. Marriage, for them, is framed in a specific way and it has meaning outside of what the rest of the country would have for marriage. Church for a neo-landmark Baptist from rural Kentucky or Texas has a different meaning than for most Baptists.
I have just uploaded my last research paper before I begin my dissertation. The title of the paper was Designing Communications that Effect Change. I look at how the brain construct our reality, how meaning is constructed, how the brain processes information, and elements of communication that bring behavioral change. I discovered that reason is emotionally constructed (we are emotional beings who think, not the other way around), and thus not nearly effective as stories that touch the heart. We learn predominantly through images, and as a result are all innate semioticians, as the brain processes through neural imagery.
