1) Chosen Beliefs/Opinions. Some beliefs and opinions are the product of choice. Such opinions are held primarily because the believer chooses to believe them. There may exist little or no evidence for what is believed. Logic and deduction are not essential to this kind of opinion. The believer believes what he/she believes, or holds to their opinion because they wish to believe it.
2) Evidence-based Beliefs/Opinions. This second type of opinion entails such things as data, reasoning, verification. The believer has been persuaded by certain facts, empirical evidences, and rational thought processes. The thing believed, or the opinion held, may not at all represent the believer’s preference or inclination. In fact, he/she may have been persuaded against their predilection.
QUIZ QUESTION
Which type of belief/opinion is the more easily dislodged? that is, from which type of opinion is a person more easily persuaded to accept an alternate view? Support your answer.
o Chosen beliefs/opinions
o Evidence-based beliefs/opinions
Now it is true that most opinions actually fit into a continuum spanning these two extremes; our convictions and beliefs are often a combination of choices and evidences. To be honest, my own belief in God is partly a choice, and partly evidence-based. Honest skeptics may admit to choice playing a role in their atheism. While it would be interesting to go down that trail sometime, that is not the purpose of today’s post. Rather, I have been thinking lately about what I consider a very entrenched opposition to evolution (both cosmic and biological) among American evangelical Christians, including, it seems, the majority of my friends.
Over the past 15 years, my studies have changed my opinions about origins. Until the early 90’s, I believed in Young Earth Creationism. As a Bible-believing Christian, that was my natural inclination. It was my choice. Oh yes, I had “evidence” as well. But when it occurred to me that 95% of my reading on the subject was from other Young Earth Creationists, and that the vast majority of scientists rejected Young Earth Creationism, I thought it wise to consider the other side of the argument. This process led to the persuasions I now hold: the universe is billions of years old, our earth is likewise billions of years old, life on this planet rose slowly over billions of years through natural processes now well understood, and all living things on earth share a common descent. These views were not the product of choice. Though some of my friends respond to me as though I chose to become an evolutionist, nothing could be farther from the truth. I simply found the evidence for slow evolution of the cosmos, and of life on our planet to be overwhelming and undeniable. My acceptance of Big Bang cosmology and of evolution falls entirely into category number 2: Evidence-based.
Having arrived at these conclusions, I have found that the realities of an ancient universe and common-descent evolution are not only compatible with my faith, but actually help to provide satisfying answers to many difficulties and enigmas. And when factored into theology proper, eschatology, bibliology, and Christian living, they 1) compel us to rethink many traditional theological assumptions and 2) lead us to understandings that are both fascinating and practical. I long for a community of believers who can share with me the excitement of discovery, and who can help in the process of re-evaluating traditionally held Christian concepts.
For these reasons, over the last two years or so I have been attempting to open minds of Christian friends to these possibilities. I have had almost no success. Instead of opening minds to possibilities, I have been viewed as attacking their opinions. The questions I ask, and the ensuing discussions usually lead to boredom, disdain, or anger. My opinions often fly in the face of the way they have chosen to think.
ANSWER to the QUIZ QUESTION
It is far easier to dislodge evidence-based beliefs than it is to dislodge chosen beliefs. You might have thought otherwise. I did. I might have thought that evidence-based opinions would be more firm, less flexible than beliefs not founded upon evidence. My experience has shown the opposite to be the case.
It has recently dawned upon me (I’m a bit slow!) that the intransigence typical of Young Earth Creationists is due to the fact that theirs is a category 1 belief/opinion. People are not persuaded of Young Earth Creationism by a balanced review of the evidence. No one is. (No one believes in Young Earth Creationism unless they are predisposed to such an opinion by their religious convictions. I do not know of a single person anywhere who arrived at Young Earth Creationism by merely looking at evidence. Rather, it is an opinion born of choice.) And category 1 opinions are extremely difficult to dislodge. People will sometimes become defensive and enraged when you try.
So I am facing a conundrum. I am motivated to prepare my friends for what I consider an inevitable paradigm shift, and to develop a community of believers who will study the Bible with me from an evolutionary perspective. But I am having no success. And I risk alienating my own friends if I continue. So I am asking my readers to weigh in. Should I continue to prod, to provoke, to challenge? Or should I lay it down, and look instead for a community already open to such discussions? And how might I find other evangelical Christians who understand evolution, and care about its implications? Where would I look? Any ideas?
19 comments:
Cliff:
I've been wondering where everyone went.
My first reaction is that even "evidence-based belief" relies upon chosen and untestable presuppositions. Most of the people who pride themselves in their rationality actually are working from a strictly materialist dogma: that only those things which can be seen, touched, predicted, captured and analysed exist. This is a chosen belief that is as dogmatically held onto as the most fanatic religionist holds onto his.
As for your second point, I'm not sure what to advise. I, too, have few evangelical friends with whom I can freely explore the issues with. It seems that the opposition to "Evolution" has been primarily an Evangelical American Protestant phenomenon. I don't know many Catholics well enough, but I would expect to find much common ground. I would also like to know more about Orthodox doctrines, too. It seems these branches are far more accepting of honest science and reason.
In the meantime, I try to stay connected with my friends and church, sharing the common ground. I only differ in private (well occasionally in a small group) and only with those who are stable enough to allow me time to develop my thoughts and won't let a difference of opinion break the bond of friendship.
Don't know if this helps -
Rich G.
I am 28 and a member of the Presbyterian Church in American, and I have recently come to accept both an old earth and the theory of evolution, though I have kept my position pretty private. This issue is proving to be a rabbit hole that goes farther and farther; I haven't come close to working out all the issues that come when evolution and the Bible are both embraced. But I am feeling optimistic about where Protestants are going with these issues. Maybe this optimism is ungrounded, but it seems to me that there are a lot of ex-YEC's out there and a lot more literature surfacing that is pro-theistic evolution. As science and scientific knowledge ever increases, I can only imagine that this issue will come to a head. Personally, continuing to worship at your church while doing what you can to promote your beliefs on evolution seems better than leaving and starting a new group.
May I ask what denomination you belong to? And also, I'm curious--what is the biggest issue that evolution has enlightened for you?
Rich,
As always, your comments are appreciated; and yes, they are helpful. I do look forward to face time with you, hopefully soon! And there are others with whom conversation can truly range “outside the box.” But I do long to be part of a community of believers who share an openness to science, and an enthusiasm for its impact upon our faith.
Thomas,
Welcome! Like you, I also kept some of my positions quiet up until two years ago when I started this blog. I was at that time the lead elder of our fellowship, a nondenominational fellowship described briefly elsewhere on this site (see Toledo Christian Fellowship in the sidebar index of topics). During the teaching one Sunday, I chose to declare my acceptance of evolution, and proceeded to teach Genesis 1 from an Ancient Near Eastern perspective. I did not anticipate the angry reactions, nor the undermining of trust which ensued. That was the beginning of the end of our fellowship, at least as it had been over the 17 years of my leadership. About half of the fellowship chose to move on to other churches. The other half (about 25) continue to meet in various ways. Every other Sunday we host a “Sunday Breakfast” in our home which includes worship, Bible Study, and discussion.
This site has several articles that deal with the impact of evolution and cosmology upon my thinking. The “Main Post Series” sidebar has several such posts. I hope you will join in the discussion!
Hi Cliff,
On the categories of beliefs & how easily they are changed, I think an important parameter is the importance of the belief to the person in question. You can’t compare which is more easily dislodged without that parameter.
So in the science / faith discussion, many people have chosen a YEC perspective & are completely unwilling to change that stance since they perceive YEC to be absolutely fundamental to their faith in Christ. Now faith in Christ is (understandably) an extremely important belief for these people (as it is to you and I). So to help a YEC come to terms with evolution, we should in fact almost ignore the evidence for evolution (or at least not highlight it immediately). The more important belief to dislodge is the conflict-thesis between evolution and faith; that is a pre-requisite to getting anywhere.
Regarding finding a community, I’m not sure I have good answers. There are probably 2 parts to this:
1. Finding a church community that accepts your views and doesn’t consider it to be relevant and/or a hindrance to participating in the work of Christ.
2. Finding a community that is interested in digging deeper into the theological implications and discussions.
Personally, I have #1 but not #2. And I guess I’m OK with that since I can get some of #2 from internet discussions / reading books. Not having #1 would be a big problem.
Hi Steve,
I suppose I also have the benefit of #1. A few friends seemed to have zoned me out, but most of the people in my fellowship, and particularly the other leaders of our network of churches, accept me. But I do long for people who care about the theological/biblical paradigm shifts necessitated by science, and are enthusiastic about exploring the significance of cosmic and biological evolution. Even with my internet comrades (of which you were the first!), I long for face-to-face conversation. Maybe someday, huh?
Returning my many thanks for your comment on my post, I decided to go ahead and weigh in over here. I read this when you first posted it, but I didn't feel inclined to respond at first, because this is something about which I feel almost helpless: I am where you are in so many ways, and asking the same questions.
I must agree with your position: to the extent that beliefs are credos not resulting from rational inquiry, to that same extent rational arguments will fail to dissuade.
But there's something else that we must factor in, and that is whether the belief in question is deemed integral or unchallengeable among an important group with which the individual self-identifies. This is not always a factor, as the freer-thinking among us don't really much care or are at least better at keeping secrets. Yet there are some who would rather not examine "unsafe" topics, much less entertain them without examination, if it in any way made them feel like it would place their position within a highly valued group in jeopardy. It's part of "counting the cost", and not an entirely illegitimate thought process because it helps us evaluate which battles to fight and which to let alone.
Creationists generally come from groups that exclude based upon certain criteria very quickly (we call these fundamentalists). So it's not just a single issue, such as creation vs. evolution or the literal Bible vs. ANE literature/culture/accomodation, etc. It's whether or not they would feel like good Christians if they dissented on a point so firmly regarded by their groups as non-negotiable.
I think this might be instructive for your second question. To me, the game plan has always been to loosen fundamentalism's grasp rather than to challenge the non-negotiables (of which special creation is one). Introduce some sound hermeneutics that chip away at things other than the litmus test issues. When they really get a good bite, set the hook. I've chipped away at a typical fundie colleague at work for a couple years, so that he wasn't flabbergasted when I told him in the last couple months that I wasn't a special creationist, that I didn't think the Bible was trying to answer that question. I think he was prepared by my constant hammering away at the audience-relevance/cultural context thing. I shifted the goalposts of his Chosen Beliefs/Opinions in less objectionable, gray areas, so that, although he's not particularly close to becoming an evolutionist, he's much less likely to be one of the annoying, ignorant detractors. And that is a net gain for Christianity's influence in the world. :-)
So the possible take-away would be, are they teachable? For me, creation vs. evolution is only the tip of the iceberg. I think misjudging what the Bible is and what it says is the main issue, and worth sticking around to correct if at all possible. I believe you'd find that before you even get to the evolution topic, you'll get a pretty good idea whether they're going to accept it based upon the facts or whether they are more committed to their Chosen Beliefs/Opinions.
This is waaay too long. But maybe it said something worthwhile.
Hi Cliff,
I struggle with the same issues and have come to the same conclusion—that this is a belief-based issue for the vast majority of the people that hold to YEC or anti-evolution beliefs. In my experience the few that claim to have made their decision based on evidence quickly fall back to belief, or just disengage if I challenge their evidence.
The thing that bugs me the most is that kids being brought up in the church get the message that they need to choose God or choose science. Even if they are exposed to YEC “science” they are still going to get massive exposure to the alternate view. It’s great that people have worked hard to create stuff like Gordon Glover’s series, but until the parents come around it is going to be an uphill climb to get exposure to these resources.
I have talked with one pastor, and have thought a lot about engaging with another, but the problem that I come back to is the slippery slope problem. Since the creation/flood account is relatively well cross-referenced through the scriptures, including the words of Jesus I don’t consider this a specious argument. The flat earth / geocentric verses are not as pervasive, and so easier to dismiss as figurative. Of course there are many other things that Christians interpret in non-literal ways, but I think it is mostly an unconscious thing (like knowing how far away to stand from someone and how loud we should talk) that is engrained in the Evangelical culture and very hard for people to identify, much less challenge. It is just the way things are. I will always remember the very uncomfortable moment when my ID world developed a crack…
Regarding the inevitable paradigm shift, I think this will almost be a generational style transition, way slower than I would like.
But regarding your question—how/if to engage in your flesh-and-blood community of believers. Right now I am focusing on the issue of the underlying Biblical hermeneutic—which I think is the more fundamental blocking point. It has the advantage that you can have that discussion without touching on the super sensitive age-of-earth/evolution issues. Not that Biblical inerrancy isn’t sensitive, but it is at least a change of subject. Along those lines I have been reading stuff like Peter Enns “Inspiration and Incarnation”, Bonhoeffer “Meditating on the Word”, and “What would Jesus Deconstruct” by John Caputo. I think we need some answers for Biblical interpretation after the literal creation / flood approach that are better than what we have now.
-- Vance
Hi Cliff,
Great topic.
Hi Rich,
Still making it up as you go along I see;
"My first reaction is that even "evidence-based belief" relies upon chosen and untestable presuppositions. Most of the people who pride themselves in their rationality actually are working from a strictly materialist dogma: that only those things which can be seen, touched, predicted, captured and analysed exist. This is a chosen belief that is as dogmatically held onto as the most fanatic religionist holds onto his."
Any kind of justification or examples of this kind of thing at all?
Regards,
Psi
Hi, Psi!
Still making it up as you go along I see;
"My first reaction is that even "evidence-based belief" relies upon chosen and untestable presuppositions. Most of the people who pride themselves in their rationality actually are working from a strictly materialist dogma: that only those things which can be seen, touched, predicted, captured and analysed exist. This is a chosen belief that is as dogmatically held onto as the most fanatic religionist holds onto his."
Any kind of justification or examples of this kind of thing at all?
Sure. Have you seen any of the reactions I received over at UTI? It's been a while si8nce I've posted much, but Brent, Rob, Hank & company exemplify this.
Rich G.
Hi Rich,
Can you give me a link - don't know what UTI is - or have forgotten.
Thanks,
Psi
BTW Cliff,
Yes you are demonstrably spot on. Evidence based beliefs change with the evidence.
Dawkins has a touching tale in ?Blind Watchmaker? about a professor of his inviting a supporter of a rival hypothesis of his to lecture with details of new evidence just in. The prof congratulated the speaker and thanked him for correcting his error of all these years.
The audience of science undergraduates clapped their hands red.
I personally like learning, especially when it involves changing your mind.
- - -
A word of warning - your brain is not made of concrete - rational thought may leak into the faith department.
Looking at the tales of those who lost faith - all it takes is some questions and a ruthlessly honest approach to the answers.
Regards,
Psi
Psi:
Can you give me a link - don't know what UTI is - or have forgotten.
Sure. Here it is:
http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/
Rich G.
Thanks Rich,
No I don't think I have seen this before.
That is a big site - can you pick out just a couple of examples of what you mean by;
"Most of the people who pride themselves in their rationality actually are working from a strictly materialist dogma: that only those things which can be seen, touched, predicted, captured and analysed exist. This is a chosen belief that is as dogmatically held onto as the most fanatic religionist holds onto his."
Thanks,
Psi
Cliff, FYI:
I just posted a spin-off on my blog.
Nice topic, Cliff.
We all need community. I think that is one of the difficulties in atheism too, especially apostate atheism. In that case, one consciously leaves a community and it is hard to find another one. There are no "First Church of Evolutionary Creationists" in town, nor are there Humanist churches to speak of (they are more likely to be organizational meetings on how to keep church and state separated, or how to combat theists). Perhaps community is part of why I pursued a second career in science....
We live in an interesting age where the internet can certainly enable virtual friendships. It can also facilitate movements. I'd recommend going to Meetup.com and forming a group -- at least to put feelers out. The Evolutionary Creationist/Theist movement is gaining traction and perhaps through Biologos or elsewhere, you can advertise meetup groups and enable physical interactions.
In the meanwhile, you cannot reverse course. You are at a point where you cannot ignore science and need to incorporate that into your theology. Since community is also important, you need to try and concentrate on those areas in theology with others that are not so threatening. That can be hard, especially when the implications around scientific findings are so profound and therefore take much of your attention.
Regarding the types of belief, when an opinion is choice and really not built on evidence at all, it is no wonder that evidence-based arguments are ignored or poorly received. The question is why people choose those beliefs. Even if it is habit, there must be some economical payoff to it. If you can speak to the rewards of one's belief (or the detriments of disbelief), really understanding motivations, then you might be able to have better communication.
Steve D & Vance,
Thank you both for your thought-out responses. You guys show great patience and understanding. You are both right about the real issue being how we handle the Bible. And I have taken your counsel to heart. I do address this issue both here at OutsideTheBox and in my fellowship. I will continue to do that.
Psi,
I have read that Dawkin’s vignette somewhere, though I have not yet read Blind Watchmaker (I hope to read it somtime). Would that we were all more like that professor. Einstein empbodies the spirit of science for many of us ... but even old Albert became so attached to what he wanted to think that he resisted quantum physics for years. I think he even resisted Hubble.
I will take your warning ... though I am not overly concerned. I happen to think that my theistic faith will stand the test of intellectual rigor. Assuming it to be true, it must do so. As for “those who lost faith”, you must surely be aware that “questions and a ruthlessly honest approach to answers” can likewise be dangerous to skeptics. Many atheists have travelled just such a road straight into faith.
Tom,
You really do touch upon the crux of the matter for me, which is community. You hit all nails on the head when you wrote: Since community is also important, you need to try and concentrate on those areas in theology with others that are not so threatening. That can be hard, especially when the implications around scientific findings are so profound and therefore take much of your attention. Good advise. And an insightful observation about why acting upon such advise is so difficult for me.
cliff > Instead of opening minds to possibilities, I have been viewed as attacking their opinions. The questions I ask, and the ensuing discussions usually lead to boredom, disdain, or anger.
Well, from their perspective, aren't you saying some of their opinions are plain wrong - aren't you saying the evidence against some of their opinions is "overwhelming and undeniable"?
Even worse, you once belonged to the group and now you reject some of the things the group still holds sacred - it must seem as though you have turned against them. Some will think that means you have turned against them personally - they thought they knew you.
One of the more interesting suggestions in Bruce Hood's book Supersense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable is that the whole point of the sacred is to demarcate who's in our group and who's an outsider.
Hey my friend. Although I am a beginner in this ongoing conversation, I feel its absolutely necessary and essential to our mutual faith in God, and I say go for it. From time to time, I may peak my head into your blogs. Anyway, your questions and conclusions don't throw me off or make me up tight. Using our brains is absolutely essential to an authentic faith in Jesus Christ. So thanks for your contribution in this arena of merging faith & science!
Peter
Peter, its great to see you here!
Post a Comment