On Speculation
A Logical and Scriptural Assessment
Defining Our Terms
The American Heritage Dictionary defines speculation as follows —
a. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
c. Archaic: Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.1
What should be evident to the reader is that there is nothing inherently negative or immoral about speculation. To be more precise, it should be evident to the thinking person that speculation is a necessary part of rational process of induction, or inductive reasoning.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines induction, or inductive reasoning, as follows —
Logic
a. The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
b. A conclusion reached by this process.2
Inductive reasoning is central to thinking through everyday situations and coming to a probable conclusion as to what is or is not the case. Given that we are not God, we are limited to the information we have obtained by one means or another. As a result of this, when we are engaging the world around us, especially real time events, our thinking is speculative.
Confusing Denotation & Connotation
Stating that someone is engaged in speculation, then, is not the same thing as stating that they are engaged in irrational thinking, or that they are saying something irredeemably stupid and/or false. Yet we often hear the word being used in this manner because people confuse the denotative meaning of speculation with its connotative meaning. Denotation is “the most specific or direct meaning of a word, in contrast to its figurative or associated meanings.”3 As for the “associative meaning” of a word, that is its connotation.
When we realize that there are people who sometimes draw invalid inferences, thereby reaching unsound conclusions that are then used to justify their foolish, destructive, or sinful actions, we can understand why the term speculation has negative connotations. However, to treat the act of speculation as something that is inherently wrong, and for Christians this means sinful, is to show one’s lack of understanding with regard to not merely language and logic, but also Christian morality.
Two Moral Problems
In the first case, identifying speculation as something inherently bad/sinful undermines the process of reasoning we use multiple times a day. Do you know if your neighbor is going to kill you? The answer is, of course — No, you don’t. Then upon what basis do you go about your business as if he is not going to kill you? You take into consideration certain facts about your neighbor, your environment, and so on. And you guess that given these facts your neighbor will not kill you. This is a guess, not an epistemically justified belief.
Less dramatically, you may guess that the reason why your father wears shorts on a given Sunday is because it is his day off, shorts are more comfortable and leisurely than pants, and he doesn’t have any formal activities to attend to on that day. You may be entirely right, or you may be entirely wrong. The speculation in this case doesn’t seem to have any non-trivial consequences. However, it could be helpful in training you to think about the cluster of items mentioned — the relationship of one’s choice of attire to one’s job, the relation of one’s attire to one’s formal and informal commitments, and so on.
In neither one of these cases would you be engaged in something sinful. Instead, you would be simply engaging in a very loose form of inductive reasoning, giving consideration to what may or may not be the case, and determining the plausibility of your speculative conclusion that p or ¬p is the case. Yet if it is the case that speculation about any given subject is immoral per se, then you would be guilty of sin for engaging in this loose form of inductive reasoning. To identify speculation as an inherently sinful activity is, in other words, to implicitly accuse others who have engaged in it of sin when they have done nothing wrong.
Another moral problem that arises is that if you are guilty of sin simply by speculating about p, and speculation about p is directly related to loving your neighbor, as it is the only available means of deliberating on p that you have, then you are (a.)failing to love God with all of your mind and, consequently, (b.)failing to love your neighbor as yourself. While we have explicit knowledge of God’s moral requirements of us, there are many times when we are limited with respect to what we know about a particular situation in which we find ourselves and/or our neighbors. In those instances, we must be able to consider what may or may not be the case given the limited information we have, so that we can decide how we ought best to implement obedience to God’s commandments.
Scripture & Speculation
Some may contend that speculation per se is forbidden by Scripture, condemned as idle and worthless. However, there is no Scriptural basis for thinking that is the case. Scripture condemns a particular kind of speculation that is (a.)religious in nature and (b.)spiritually unprofitable. The word English word speculation does not appear in the King James translation, but does in popular contemporary translations like the ESV and NIV. The Greek word ζήτησις (transliteration, zētēsis) appears in John 3:25, Acts 25:20, 1st Tim 1:4 & 6:4, 2nd Tim 2:23, and Titus 3:9, and is used as follows.
John 3:25 — A controversial dispute, for the sake of controversy and not edification, between the disciples of John the Baptist and some of the Jews arose over the matter of purification.
Acts 25:20 — Here the word merely means “questions.”
1st Tim 1:4 & 6:4 — The first reference is to fruitless controversial disputation based upon “myths and endless genealogies” from which Timothy must keep himself. The call is to focus on the doctrine he had received from the Word of God via the OT and the apostles.4
The second reference is to the same manner of fruitless disputes rooted in moral doctrine contrary to that of the apostles, and in the corrupt nature of would-be teachers who have a craving for controversy and quarrels, and who desire to get wealthy, it seems, by means of creating controversies and quarrels.52nd Tim 2:23 — Here the apostle Paul is, again, referring to fruitless disputation over words. This is a reference to a word in the Law by which these false teachers seek to overthrow the faith of some.6
Titus 3:9 — The meaning here is the same as that found in numbers 1, 3, & 4.
What is clear from these passages is that there is a certain kind of speculation that God condemns — extra-canonical/contra-biblical, doctrinally unsound, and practically fruitless speculation that drives men away from the faith. This kind of speculation is to be avoided by the man of God, the teacher of God’s people, and is to be dealt with in his congregation. This is much different than speculation about what may or may not be the case in a given real life situation, and which may aid us in seeking further information to inform our decisions, or may aid us in deciding (if it is the only means we have of deliberation).
Concluding Remarks
While we ought not speculate vainly — i.e. about matters of doctrine that are clear, settled, and central to the Christian faith — we are not forbidden from speculating about the nature of events taking place in the world. In fact, we have reason to use speculation in a way that is honoring to God and helps equip us to better love our neighbor. However, its usefulness seems to be limited to the following —
Preliminary inductive research of a given state of affairs.
Preliminary theorizing about a given state of affairs.
Evidentially hamstrung inductive reasoning surrounding a state of affairs.
This means that actions based solely on speculation, when one has access to a variety of sources of data/evidence, are morally unjustifiable. It is within one’s right to speculate about a given matter, as outlined above; however, it is one’s duty before God to investigate a state of affairs as thoroughly as possible before we consider our course of action. Scripture does not encourage us to act on a whim, or to act immediately on the basis of limited data/evidence. Instead, we are commanded to diligently seek out wisdom and understanding, and to judge righteously on the basis of evidence.
Christ made this clear when speaking about those who would follow him, declaring —
Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.7
Jesus’ argument here assumes that decisions to act are to be based upon a careful consideration of the data/evidence one has the ability to accumulate. The person who has access to such data/evidence, fails to examine it and carefully consider it, and only then act is not acting either wisely or morally.
1st Tim 1:3-7 —
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1st Tim 6:3-5 —
If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
Thus, the following commentators explain —
John Gill —
…it became them to strive and contend for the form of sound words, for the wholesome words or doctrines of our Lord Jesus, but not about mere words, and especially such as were
to no profit; to no advantage to truth, nor to themselves nor others; were not to edification, to spiritual edification, to godly edifying, which is in faith:
but to the subverting of the hearers; the confounding of their minds, misleading their judgments, and overthrowing their faith; and therefore were not only unprofitable, but hurtful and pernicious, and by all means to be avoided.
Matthew Poole —
That they strive not about words to no profit; that they spend not their time in their pulpits in contests about words which tend to no solid advantage of their hearers.
But to the subverting of the hearers; but may tend to the subversion of them, and the destroying their steadiness in the faith, drawing them into parties and factions, the fruit of which is nothing but envy, and contentions, and different opinions in matters of faith; as to which it hath been always observed, that the affectation of new phrases hath been introductive of a novelty in opinion.
Pulpit Commentary —
The construction is ‘not to strive about words, a thing useful for nothing, but, on the contrary, tending to subvert those who hear such strife.’ To the subverting (ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ); elsewhere only in 2 Peter 2:6, where it is used of a material overthrow, as it is in the LXX. of Genesis 19:29, to which St. Peter is referring. The history of its use here of a moral overthrow, which is not borne out by its classical use, seems to be that the apostle had in his mind the very common metaphor of οἰκοδομή, edification, as the proper result of speaking and teaching, and so uses the contrary to ‘building up,’ viz. an ‘overthrowing’ or ‘destruction,’ to describe the effect of the teaching of those vain talkers and deceivers…
Luke 14:27-33.