So I’m on this religion discussion board, and recently the rather mundane observation was made that people’s religious beliefs tend to mirror their family of origin. Overwhelmingly, Muslim adults were born into Muslim families. Jewish adults were born into Jewish families. Christians in Christian families, Hindus with Hindus, Buddhists with Buddhists, etc. A very low number of people, statistically, tend to adopt a spiritual path that they did not grow up around and have extensive interactions with. Many Christians who commented on this discussion board seemed to have a huge problem with this mundane statistical fact. They found this undermined the veracity of their belief (because they assumed that a belief handed down from others is somehow less true), as well as the authenticity of their belief (because most wanted to think of their belief as something they chose for good reasons). But is this the case?
It goes without saying that whether a proposition is true, and how we came to believe in that proposition, are two separate issues. We come to believe most propositions-- from religion to math to science to history to morals to taboos to superstitions-- through a process of nurture, socialization, and acculturation. The question then becomes which propositions correspond to reality, and which do not. So, it is both possible and necessary to separate the source of a belief from the veracity of a belief, and then test that veracity using evidence and reason, while comparing it to other alternate explanations. But this is a tedious process that takes a great deal of time, and we all tend toward “confirmation bias” by paying the most attention to evidence and reasons which confirm what we already believe.
Also, for what it is worth: A major predictor of adult atheism and secularism is also family of origin and socialization. Conversions, whether to religion or away from religion, are statistically rare. Most people inherit their beliefs from the social pond they swim in, and then develop post hoc reasons for their beliefs later on. Interestingly, most people do not seem to want to admit this. Most people— myself included— want to believe that their post hoc rationalizations are the reason they came to belief in the first place.
If I’m being really honest, I was pre-conditioned by socialization to be open to the idea that there is a God who could give life meaning and purpose, who is known through Jesus Christ. I did not accept this until age 18, but it was definitely in the water I swam in. When I was 18, my life came crumbling down and (somewhat predictably) I had a conversion experience and experienced love, purpose, and direction through Jesus. I have since developed a whole host of evidential observations and post-hoc rationalizations about how this experience is grounded in objective reality. But it was not the rationalizations that brought me to faith. It was the experience. And that experience was conditioned by prior socialization. Because the lens through which we view and interpret our experience is that which has been formed in us over time through social structures and relationships.
Does this mean that we can never “get behind” or “go under” our beliefs to find out if they are “true” in any sense? Not at all. We can find more or less probable explanations for what is real and what is not. It is just very difficult, and seems to almost always be based in probability rather than certainty. For instance, I have come to believe that there really is an Ultimate Reality of Love who is both our original Source and our final Destination. And I believe that Jesus Christ reveals the nature of this Love in a totally unique and personal way. I have lots of reasons for this which seem very sound and highly probable to me.
I also have come to believe that the best explanation for how humans (and all other forms of biological life) came about on this planet is through a very long process of evolution, which operates on a rational and partially predictable process of natural adaptation. I have other kinds of evidence which indicates to me that evolution is an overwhelmingly probable explanation for the diversity and unity of life as we know it. Over time, I have taken my beliefs about Ultimate Reality, and my beliefs about physical reality, and harmonized them in a way that seems to do justice to both in Evolutionary Creationism. WHY we are here seems to be due to the Love and creative impulse of the Divine, and HOW the Divine accomplishes this is via the mechanism of evolution. But as solid as I have found this hypothesis to be for the last two decades, I am open to new evidence and a new synthesis if that is presented. I try to hold my views based on probability with humility.
However, what does NOT help us find beliefs which are true and rooted in reality is the opposite of the process outlined above. When we deny that we are prone to certain kinds of belief due to socialization, it blinds us to the real process by which we come to accept certain ideas. When we deny that there is evidence and reason which can be read in many ways, and which are subject to more or less probable explanations, it blinds us to better understandings of the world we live in. Above all, when we pretend that our beliefs are fully objective and completely certain, we rob ourselves of the ability to adapt and change and live more resilient and fulfilling lives. Instead of this it behooves us to follow what Anglican Archbishop Joseph Butler once said: Probability is the very guide of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment