I have often wondered how people can continue to believe something even though there is a mountain of evidence against the belief. I recently came across a psychological explanation of this called "Cognitive Dissonance." Leon Festinger (1919-1989), formerly a professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota developed the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. In a book entitled, When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the End of the World (University of Minnesota Press; 1956), he investigated a religious cult which had predicted the end of the world on a particular date but when the date came nothing happened. Some of the followers acknowledged they had been duped and went back to their old lives. The very committed ones, however, could not admit to themselves that they had been fooled and thus they came up with an alternative explanation. Perhaps it was not the end of the physical world but the end of a spiritual world.
The particulars do not matter. The fact is that when someone is committed wholeheartedly to a belief system and his or her whole life is shaped by that belief, it becomes very difficult to assimilate any information which runs contrary to that belief.
What is my point? I think this explains why most people who are committed to their religion or belief system will NEVER change their beliefs NO MATTER how much evidence is presented to them.
When I was a Christian, I used to be amazed at how intelligent people could continue to believe Mormonism even though there was so much evidence against it. One day I realized that I was just as guilty of closed-mindedness as they were. I would listen to the evidence against evangelical Christianity but only to "refute it." In other words, my mind was already made up. To entertain the idea that you may actually be wrong and that your whole life, which has been built around this false belief, has been misguided is extremely painful.
How does one eliminate this cognitive dissonance? According to Festinger, there are three ways to eliminate dissonance: (1) reduce the importance of the dissonant beliefs, (2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs, or (3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.
He gives a non-religious example of this phenomenon. Consider someone who buys an expensive car but discovers that it is not comfortable on long drives. Dissonance exists between their beliefs that they have bought a good car and that a good car should be comfortable. Dissonance could be eliminated by deciding that it does not matter since the car is mainly used for short trips (reducing the importance of the dissonant belief) or focusing on the cars strengths such as safety, appearance, handling (thereby adding more consonant beliefs). The dissonance could also be eliminated by getting rid of the car, but this behavior is a lot harder to achieve than changing beliefs.
Precisely because it would be traumatic and painful for one to give up their firmly held religous beliefs, people will rarely exercise option #3. So they tend to either minimize the importance of the dissonant beliefs or try to counterbalance those dissonant beliefs with more consonant beliefs.
For example, take an evangelical Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. When confronted with the strong evidence against inerrancy, the believer might respond: (1) "Well, inerrancy, does not really matter because the Bible is a spiritual book and in spiritual matters of sin and salvation, it faithfully accomplishes it purpose;" (2)"Well, there are many great things in the Bible and I will focus on those;" or (3) "I must give up a belief in inerrancy." Most heartily resist conclusion #3.
As pointed out in the previous post, it seems most people believe in their religion for emotional reasons not intellecutal reasons. Thus, the probablity of them rejecting their religion based on intellecutal concerns is remote. A few brave, honest souls will but most will not.
Showing posts with label Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bias. Show all posts
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Are Evangelicals Open-Minded?
My experience within evangelical/fundamentalism tells me that they are not. They will often claim to be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads but in reality they are not. They have determined that the Bible is the literal Word of God and therefore nothing that contradicts it can possibly be true. This was illustrated in a previous post in which William Craig admitted that no evidence could possibly disconfirm his faith because he has the "witness of the Spirit" in his heart.
When I was at Bob Jones University, there were two incidents in particular that awoke me to the fact that honest scholarship was not allowed in evangelicalism.
First, around 1980 a book came out entitled: Decision Making and the Will of God by Gary Friesen. Friesen argued that the traditional view that God has a perfect will for your life including whom you should marry, where you should go to school, what occupation you should choose, etc. was really not biblical. He argued that the will of God in the Scripture only had to do with moral issues and that non-moral issues could be decided by Christians using wisdom (i.e., applying biblical principles).
At the time, I thought that Friesen was right about what the Scriptures taught. However, the administration at Bob Jones Univ. did not. They had taught for years that God has a perfect will for you life. One day after class, I asked Stewart Custer if he had read the book. He said, "No, but I need to read it because Dr. Bob has asked me to write a refutation of it." I was flabberghasted. I thought to myself, that is not being intellecutally honest. You are going to read the book with your mind already made up.
Second, around 1986, Bob Jones, Jr. called John MacArthur a heretic because John was teaching that it was the death of Christ that saves not his literal blood. Even though John graciously clarified his position for BJU, they would not accept it. In 1988, I wrote an article in the Calvary Theological Journal in which I basically agreed with MacArthur. Virtually all of the Bible faculty at BJU agreed with my position but were ordered by Bob, Jr. not to address the issue. They were not to address it in class nor in correspondence.
While these two examples may appear extreme, I think they illustrate the fact that evangelicalism does not allow free inquiry.
When I was at Bob Jones University, there were two incidents in particular that awoke me to the fact that honest scholarship was not allowed in evangelicalism.
First, around 1980 a book came out entitled: Decision Making and the Will of God by Gary Friesen. Friesen argued that the traditional view that God has a perfect will for your life including whom you should marry, where you should go to school, what occupation you should choose, etc. was really not biblical. He argued that the will of God in the Scripture only had to do with moral issues and that non-moral issues could be decided by Christians using wisdom (i.e., applying biblical principles).
At the time, I thought that Friesen was right about what the Scriptures taught. However, the administration at Bob Jones Univ. did not. They had taught for years that God has a perfect will for you life. One day after class, I asked Stewart Custer if he had read the book. He said, "No, but I need to read it because Dr. Bob has asked me to write a refutation of it." I was flabberghasted. I thought to myself, that is not being intellecutally honest. You are going to read the book with your mind already made up.
Second, around 1986, Bob Jones, Jr. called John MacArthur a heretic because John was teaching that it was the death of Christ that saves not his literal blood. Even though John graciously clarified his position for BJU, they would not accept it. In 1988, I wrote an article in the Calvary Theological Journal in which I basically agreed with MacArthur. Virtually all of the Bible faculty at BJU agreed with my position but were ordered by Bob, Jr. not to address the issue. They were not to address it in class nor in correspondence.
While these two examples may appear extreme, I think they illustrate the fact that evangelicalism does not allow free inquiry.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Am I Just Biased Against the Supernatural?
Some Christians will maintain that I and others who reject the literal resurrection of Jesus are just biased against the supernatural. In other words, they say we have made up our minds in advance of the evidence that the supernatural does not exist. Is that a fair assessment, in light of what I said yesterday about everyone being biased by their worldview?
I agree that I have a bias against the supernatural. But I maintain most evangelical Christians do as well, unless the supernatural event is recorded in their canonical Scriptures.
Why don't they believe that the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith? Why don't they believe in the miracles reported at Lourdes? Why don't they believe in the Hindu milk miracle?
They don't believe these miracles because they contradict their presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. Now in all fairness, a minority of evangelicals might argue that these miracles are indeed true but that they are done by a diabolical power. At least that is more consistent. It is also more in line with the general mindset of the people in the Bible days.
For example, we were at the doctor's office the other day and a woman was having a diabetic seizure. She was screaming, groaning, trying to bite the nurse, etc. A first century person seeing this would have probably concluded that the person was demon possessed. They tended to interpret unexplainable events as being supernatural in cause. They were biased in favor of the supernatural(See Matthew 17:15-18).
As a post-Enlightenement individual living in a world where most events that used to be ascribed to the supernatural now have natural explanations, I freely admit that I am biased against supernatural explanations. I think the evidence for a supernatural cause for an event would have to be overwhelming (not extraordinary--I am not falling into the trap that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence).
But are Christians any less biased, albeit in the opposite direction? No, I don't think so. Since they have presupposed the Bible to be a divine revelation, they will believe what it reports no matter what.
For example, Mark Smith claims he asked William Craig the following question:
Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.
I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.
He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb.
Now whether Craig actually said this or not, I don't know for certain but it is in agreement with his writings in which he says that he knows Christianity is true ultimately due to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. (See Reasonable Faith, pp. 32ff.)
So, Craig believes because of the "inner witness of the Spirit" and then he interprets the evidence to agree with his prior belief. No contrary evidence, according to him, can overturn his belief. Isn't that blatant bias?
Now, I maintain that my position is more consistent. I acknowledge my bias against the supernatural but I apply that bias across the board. In other words, when I read a report of a miracle in the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, or any other book, I begin with the assumption that it is false. I will examine whatever evidence exists and if there is overwhelming evidence, I am willing to re-think my initial assumption.
Evangelical Christians such as Craig, on the other hand, will not allow any evidence to disconfirm their belief in Christianity. When they read a report of a miracle in the Koran or the Book of Mormon, they assume its false and apply post-enlightenement criteria to examine the claim. When they read a miracle claim in the Bible, they assume its true and go about to explain away the post-enlightenment understanding of such a miracle claim.
Who is more consistent?
I agree that I have a bias against the supernatural. But I maintain most evangelical Christians do as well, unless the supernatural event is recorded in their canonical Scriptures.
Why don't they believe that the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith? Why don't they believe in the miracles reported at Lourdes? Why don't they believe in the Hindu milk miracle?
They don't believe these miracles because they contradict their presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. Now in all fairness, a minority of evangelicals might argue that these miracles are indeed true but that they are done by a diabolical power. At least that is more consistent. It is also more in line with the general mindset of the people in the Bible days.
For example, we were at the doctor's office the other day and a woman was having a diabetic seizure. She was screaming, groaning, trying to bite the nurse, etc. A first century person seeing this would have probably concluded that the person was demon possessed. They tended to interpret unexplainable events as being supernatural in cause. They were biased in favor of the supernatural(See Matthew 17:15-18).
As a post-Enlightenement individual living in a world where most events that used to be ascribed to the supernatural now have natural explanations, I freely admit that I am biased against supernatural explanations. I think the evidence for a supernatural cause for an event would have to be overwhelming (not extraordinary--I am not falling into the trap that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence).
But are Christians any less biased, albeit in the opposite direction? No, I don't think so. Since they have presupposed the Bible to be a divine revelation, they will believe what it reports no matter what.
For example, Mark Smith claims he asked William Craig the following question:
Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.
I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.
He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb.
Now whether Craig actually said this or not, I don't know for certain but it is in agreement with his writings in which he says that he knows Christianity is true ultimately due to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. (See Reasonable Faith, pp. 32ff.)
So, Craig believes because of the "inner witness of the Spirit" and then he interprets the evidence to agree with his prior belief. No contrary evidence, according to him, can overturn his belief. Isn't that blatant bias?
Now, I maintain that my position is more consistent. I acknowledge my bias against the supernatural but I apply that bias across the board. In other words, when I read a report of a miracle in the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, or any other book, I begin with the assumption that it is false. I will examine whatever evidence exists and if there is overwhelming evidence, I am willing to re-think my initial assumption.
Evangelical Christians such as Craig, on the other hand, will not allow any evidence to disconfirm their belief in Christianity. When they read a report of a miracle in the Koran or the Book of Mormon, they assume its false and apply post-enlightenement criteria to examine the claim. When they read a miracle claim in the Bible, they assume its true and go about to explain away the post-enlightenment understanding of such a miracle claim.
Who is more consistent?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)