There's a familiar account of the undoing of the Ptolemaic model of the universe. Early in its history, the geocentric picture of things placed the sun and moon, the planets and the stars in concentric spheres spinning about the center of the earth. In order to account for the retrograde motion of the planets, epicycles were introduced. In order to account for other eccentricities of velocity and position, further epicycles were introduced. As the precision of observation increased, the number of orbits-within-orbits necessary to posit that the whole thing was made of perfect circles increased, until Kepler accounted for it all by means of eccentricity and his three laws.
2. The historical accuracy of the story above is is more or less irrelevant, but it illustrates an idea that I've been interested in for some time. What we observe in the story is a theory based on two sources: first, a naive observation of the world based on reason and common sense; second, a preference to explain the world by means of constructions thought of as simple and perfect (circles and spheres). The Ptolemaic model, with its many epicycles and complications did not really cease to describe the motions of the planets, to my knowledge. I assume that, except for some subtle relativistic effects and accidental transformations brought on by axial procession and so on, the apparent motion of the heavenly bodies could still be successfully described by means of circles-in-circles and bodies moving about the earth.
3. But why would one want to bother doing it this way? Perhaps because the claim that the center of the earth is the center of the universe has some accidental implications for one's metaphysics or world-picture. Perhaps because one is a big fan of circles. Maybe one is a diehard Pythagorean. Who knows. There is a preference to maintain the core modeling principles of the received system and refine them rather than overturning them. What's interesting to me is how it's this preference, together perhaps with the inability or disinclination to observe things precisely, perpetuates the system of ever-multiplying complications in service of a bad theory.
4. Let's take this idea as a model and use it to describe a relationship rather than an astronomical system. Suppose you have a friend. You have great affection for this friend (let's call him Brad) and his cordiality toward you indicates that the feeling is reciprocated. Suppose that both reason (i.e. common sense) and fittingness (i.e. reciprocity) together justify this belief.
5. Suppose over time you attempt to reach out to Brad and are occasionally ignored or left hanging. You reason "Brad would love to spend time with me, but he has many obligations and I have to accept that whatever he does is out of friendship". The experience is repeated. You write Brad notes or send messages. They are sometimes answered in brief, but mostly not at all. You continue to reach out. You reason "he is testing me". Long periods of silence enter into the relationship, and you interpret these as being further tests, or justified punishments. You offer apologies to Brad, again on the assumption that he has good will toward you and is acting out of affection and good will toward you. You conclude that all of this is part of a great plan to teach you how to be a better friend, or to make you worthier, or is somehow otherwise good and right and fitting. This goes on indefinitely, eventually leading to a stable situation in which Brad offers you no contact whatsoever. Eventually you reason that he means for you to spend time with him by reflecting on the messages he sent you in the past, which you do. In your mind, this friendship is very rich and fruitful, and you learn to draw much meaning out of the old messages he sent you, and to hear Brad's voice speaking words of friendship to you through his old text messages when you are confused or in need of support.
6. Suppose someone comes to you and says that Brad is not your friend, tells you that Brad hasn't cared for you in years, is a real jerk, and is barely aware of your existence. What do you say? You must continue to believe in your friendship, and so you come up with new justifications. Why has this person devised such lies about Brad? Could it be because they stopped being friends with him and resent your friendship? Maybe they were just hurt by someone else and are misdirecting their bitterness against Brad, who is wonderful and surely did nothing wrong. Or, more likely, they probably just misunderstood something Brad said or did. There are not ten people in the world who really dislike Brad, but tons who dislike what they mistakenly think Brad to be like. What a shame! If only they too were friends, really friends, with Brad, they'd understand. After all, friendship with Brad is difficult because it is so worthwhile, because the eventual reunion is going to be so great.
7. A sane person would say that your attitude in the scenario described above is disturbing, deluded, even insane. If Brad wanted to be your friend he would have spent time with you at some point, not conditioned your friendship on unannounced punishments or tests, much less forced you to conduct an imaginary relationship with him via meditations on old text messages. This is not how people with affection for each other behave.
8. However, note that the insane version of events is still viable inasmuch as it is capable of describing your experience as it has happened. You have reasons for every cryptic snub, every period of silence. You have what you believe to be a well-founded hope for the day when your great friendship with Brad is finally realized in the flesh and you can be bosom pals and hang out. The preference for the interpretation "Brad is my friend" justifies the increasingly baroque interpretation of facts, and every new development merely invites you to reshuffle your interpretation in order to sustain that core conviction.
9. The next step, obviously, is to observe that an omnipotent personal God has just as much capacity for communication and demonstrations of friendship as your neighbor Brad, and rather more. The delusions in service of a fake relationship, the absurd rationalizations in defense of neglect and abuse may look different in this case, but they are formally the same.