Philip K. Dick
This strategy has been subtly applied to modern theological thinking, possibly, with greater effect than anywhere else in human communication. Maybe that's because it makes us feel smarter when we can define words for people that they didn't already know (even when the meaning that we share would not necessarily pass the test of greater academic scrutiny). Unquestionably, it only makes us feel smarter when we are able to find people who are dumber than us to teach.
So, our method of biblical interpretation (the fancy word is "hermeneutics") winds up largely based upon what we would like words to mean, so that they make perfect sense to us, instead of what they might necessarily mean, which often doesn't.
In 1943, a book was published in Germany (think for just a minute about what kind of social theology might be coming out of Germany in 1943) describing a theory of ecclesiology (another big word that means teaching) that suggests that the book of Deuteronomy was not written by a single person, nor was it part of the Torah in pre-national Israel; but that it was built into the Bible over time (largely during and after the Babylonian exile) by various priests who were trying to justify why things didn't go so well for Israel over the past couple of hundred years.
The reason for this reasoning is pretty simple. If Deuteronomy (and other Texts that are now considered part of the Bible) had been written by men who were trying to salvage a faith that didn't reflect history, then we don't have to embarrass ourselves by trying to justify Texts that we don't understand, either. And, if Deuteronomy (in particular) can be discredited as God's Inspired Word, we are free to re-interpret Genesis through Numbers with a broader understanding, let alone, read the New Testament as a purely independent work.
The Deuteronomistic approach also assumes that the people of Israel were largely just as illiterate as western cultures during the Seleucid Period (when Israel faced some of its darkest days of oppression). Historical and archaeological evidences don't support this at all. In fact, the same schools of modern theology that suggest that priests were able to slip in new ideas to an ignorant population, conclude that their survival as a distinctive people was due to their strong emphasis on education and the memorization of large swaths of Scripture.
What is both frightening and disappointing is that, since the 1960's, Deuteronomism has been taught in most major theological schools as a reasonable explanation of biblical inconsistencies. The reason for this is simple: it's easier to explain something away than it is to understand it.
Why is there so little sense of biblical authority among believers today? It is because the Bible is used only to justify what we believe now, instead of to grow to understand what it was intended to say.