Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 5.75 of 6

Change Happens

The most useful piece of learning for the uses of life is to unlearn what is untrue. -Antisthenes

My parents, as I've said before, were three for six in terms of producing believing children. All of us accepted Jesus as our personal savior. We all entered the "age of accountability" as born-again Evangelicals. But that's not where we ended up. For each of the three who lost faith, the path was different: One came to see the shame of his homosexuality, not as a personal failing but as a failing of our moral ancestors -- which then exposed the host of other moral failings in the Bible. Another was confronted by a small child's cancer which unearthed a mother lode of buried questions about God's beneficence and then existence. The third was simply born able to think his way out of most boxes, and he used this ability to the detriment of his salvation.

Literally thousands of testimonials at websites like ExChristian.net describe journeys out of belief, each unique. They are written by folks who were born into Christian homes and others who joined during adolescence and even people who moved into and then out of belief during adulthood. A surprising number of contributors to the site are former pastors or missionaries who now feel a sense of remorse about their recruiting work. Most never expected to be where they are today. As one former Christian put it, "Through most of my life I was sure beyond doubt that god was real and that he had bought me as one of his own through the blood of Christ. I could not have conceived that one day I would lose my faith completely and come instead to believe that god is nothing more than a human invention." (Darrel, ExC, ADGLW, 6/4/2009) Despite their best efforts and intentions, people change.

With all of the ways that we resist new ideas, one might think that awakening to complicated realities is hopeless. But there is another half of the equation. As much as we tend to be wary of threats against our world view, we are also wired to seek truth. Being able to determine what's real is a crucial part of survival: In order to thrive, we need to understand the contingencies that actually govern our wellbeing, and in order to thrive among other humans, we need means of detecting deception and even self-deception among our fellows. Accurate knowledge is valuable stuff. In fact, truth is so highly valued that even self-replicating ideologies extol the virtues of truth--they just assert that they have found it.

How do we change our minds? Belief revision as a process has long been studied by philosophers. The philosophical approach generally assumes humans are rational beings: Logical propositions come into conflict with each other or with evidence, and people revise their beliefs to restore coherence. This description works pretty well to explain how we adapt to new information, when we don't have opposing social or emotional pressures. If I have little invested in my old assumptions, it is pretty easy to correct a faulty belief in the presence of new information. The problem arises when the community of people around us, or the community of assumptions in our own heads exerts pressure resisting change. Family systems therapists say that when an identified patient begins getting better, family members often give unconscious "change-back" messages. The whole system is organized around a certain dynamic or set of roles, and even positive change bumps up against a tough, resilient homeostasis.

Consider another analogy. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote a seminal book entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which he introduced the term "paradigm shift." He argued that in science change rarely happens in a steady incremental way. Rather, a generation of scholars operates out of a (tough, resilient) set of assumptions, a paradigm, and new information gets assimilated or explained within the paradigm. But gradually contradictory evidence accumulates until it reaches a tipping point, and what Kuhn called a "paradigm shift" occurs. Previously ignored patterns in the contradictions abruptly becomes clear, and the community toggles to a better paradigm that will guide inquiry until evidence accumulates and these assumptions, too, get revised. Kuhn wrote about the hard sciences, but scholars since have come to realize that a similar process can take place in other scholarly communities and even in individuals.

An informal review of deconversion stories at ExChristian.net, suggests that, for many people, the process of faith revision happens much like Kuhn's paradigm shift. Contradictory evidence accumulates slowly over time. The contradictions can be rational, moral, or emotional. One Christian starts noticing Bible passages that are at odds with each other. Another is troubled by a preacher's justification of war and greed. A third writhes when a social misfit is tormented and then ostracized by a youth group. At first, perhaps for years, each finds ways to explain these contradictions within her existing theology. Then in the presence of some triggering event, a pattern becomes clear, and she realizes she can no longer call herself a believer. Julia Sweeney's monologue, Letting Go of God, offers a tender, funny account of her efforts to reconcile faith with experience before she makes the startling discovery that she no longer believes.

Do former Christians feel loss or relief when they finally give up on belief and adopt another form of spiritual practice or none at all? Do they develop psychological symptoms or lose them? This depends on the nature of belief and social support at the time of deconversion. After a long quest that led from Catholic Christianity through Eastern and New Age spirituality, Sweeney experienced only mild dismay and sadness when finally faced with her own disbelief. Others have it worse. Some former fundamentalists describe anxiety, depression, panic attacks, or even suicidal despair. They may seek mental health services to help them deal with the loss of friends, family or core parts of their former identity. At the other end of the spectrum are those who feel like chains have fallen away. Freed from an exhausting, guilty battle to maintain faith, they happily take up the question posed by poet Mary Oliver, "Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?"

Just like the born again Christians who feel transformed by faith, those who feel freed from faith want to share their discovery with those they love. Many former Christians grieve the fact that their spouses, children, or dear friends are still embedded in what now appears as an enormous cult. But what are the options? Attempts at conversation often fail, bringing tears and conflict, even shunning or divorce. A couple of elderly scientists are not allowed to see their grandchildren because contact might lead the children astray. A mother laments that a grown daughter won't let her visit because of the mother's loss of faith. A college student who has been caught reading "spiritual pornography" isn't allowed to be with his younger siblings unattended. What is a former believer to do?

One thing we know does not help is arguing. Research shows that after an argument, both sides tend to be even more entrenched in their old positions. By lining up our best arguments, we are more likely to convince ourselves that we are right than to convince anyone else. Perhaps the best advice is to adhere to the formula that has worked well for other hidden and stigmatized minorities: Be out. Be yourself. The more negative the stereotype of nonbelievers, the easier it is to challenge that stereotype simply by being a decent human being. When it comes to explicit conversations about religion, try to arrange time to sit down and really talk through your changes rather than having the differences of opinion come up in bits and scraps. Lay out your own thinking, and then let it be. For those you love, either the paradigm shift will happen or it won't. It is not in your power to control anyone but yourself.

Note: I will be offgrid and unable to respond to comments till Labor Day :).

Follow Valerie Tarico on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ValerieTarico

Comments

[JohnFromCensornati]

Min Syn said: "the Presbyterians are not really quite mainline."

It's not my label, but Presbyterian Church USA is clearly labeled as mainline. With your redefinition, the mainline minority just got more minor.

"The grape juice is confusing--why if they believe that scripture is inerrant, can they substitute grape juice for wine?"

It's all make believe and the juice and wine are made from the same fruit. Alcohol is evil.

[minimalist syntax]

I really don't know very much about Protestantism. When I looked up "mainline protestantism" on wikipedia, there are two Presbyterian churches. What is the different between the Presbyterian Church USA and Presbyterian Church in America? The latter is considered Evangelical.

Only some Protestants believe that alcohol is evil.

[Dap]

It is clearly becoming easier to differenchiate your knowledge on a subject and what you imagine the case to be, MS.

[iisguy]

The great failing of evangelicals is that they cannot tell the difference between intense emotional states and religious expereince.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Me neither.

[minimalist syntax]

What is your avatar? I miss the black and white one.

[minimalist syntax]

Christian mystics have always taught that one is confused if they identify emotional feelings with spiritual experiences.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Well, on that point I happen to not find the christian mystics particularly trustworthy. At the very least they should have been a lot more precise about that. But that's part of the crux: being precise about our inner life isn't a small requirement. Psychoanalysis has thrived for a century on that ambiguity - partly in fulfilling the inheritance of the religious ways of being confused about our inner life, I would argue.

[Erich Oliphant]

And an individual is to discriminate between the two how ?

How would one objectively assess one versus the other, in another? My brother.

(Sorry, once the rhyme got going :))

[minimalist syntax]

By "one" I mean the Christian seeker.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

2/2

This distinction (of whether or not deception and/or self-deception is part of the game) makes all the difference in the world when it comes to the proper definition and understanding of the inner workings of 'selective pressures' or 'competition'.

As far as I understand, a shared principle of the study of animal behaviour (no matter on which foundations) is that there is no reason to assume that deception could be at work anywhere.

That's certainly different for anything that strictly belongs to the realm of cultural evolution - and in this realm things generally may have little or nothing to do with genes or mate-selection.

So, in a sense, maybe the most important lesson from evolutionary or cognitive sciences for the study of religion may be (this is my personal opinion) that their science stops where the hard questions about religion begin - and certainly long before the hard questions about philosophy begin, which is when the simplifications of a 'bios theoretikos' are being dropped for good.

Needless to say that fundamentalist religion has no role to play in that discourse - other than as a fossil maybe.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

clarification:

with 'deception' I mean lies - within language and propositions that at least claim to be true or false.

Animals changing color or shape to hide or hunt aren't telling lies. They're doing what they are.

[minimalist syntax]

Animals' deceptions are always tied to an immediate stimulus and they must be told. They couldn't *not* play dead if the situation called for it (and e.g. run away insted).

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

1/2

Chapeau! for how you manage to out-maneuver the pitfalls of enlisting cognitive science for the purposes of discussing the dangers of fundamentalism.

I became aware only recently (after having discovered D.S. Wilson's series on group selection here at huffpo) that there are very deeply rooted wars in the trenches among evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists and the various other 'gangs' of evolution. Well, you never know before you see it. I was under the impression that these guys actually have a common message.

And maybe they do...

It's certainly crucial to make the distinctions that you made: there's a difference between belief revision with or without social pressures and with or without emotional pressures.

Much more importantly - and this separates this whole discussion from sociobiology or evolution of species with or without genetics - the crucial divide is about whether or not agents can be assumed to be able to deceive and furthermore, are able to see through or detect deception of themselves and others.

[MerrieWay]

Faith has subtle influences beyond religious viewpoints. Faith is a trust issue that challenges, who or what to rely on? The human mind operates from belief and convictions.

When one delves deeper within, through meditation or contemplation, once held beliefs can crumble. In that dissolving a knowing springs forth, often to be described as ‘oneness’ beyond religious indoctrination. Delving deep within the self a connection exists with all living matter and sentient beings. Compassion and understanding springs forth and reduces the need for judgments or agreements.

In this state of internal peace with oneself, it is no longer necessary to be accepted by family’s beliefs, nor is there the need to judge. Honoring and loving oneself opens a door to those around us to feel accepted for who they are, regardless of a singular belief.

[kwinter]

Kwinter has always found you amusing. And it made kwinter wonder, when she read this comment, what happened to the MerrieWay who couldn't write a paragraph, without referring to herself in the third person.
Kwinter was so confused, she had to check your profile for recent comments, and was shocked to find this makes three times in a row!
I guess kwinter doesn't know what to think about this. I hope this isn't a permanent change ... kwinter would certainly miss the entertainment!

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Or maybe kwinter guesses that you don't know what to think about this? :-)

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

thanks for saying this. I certainly agree. It's important to get this message out there because the destabilizing effects that result from crumbling beliefs are VERY real. That's probably the biggest problem, which is also at the center of Valerie's column this week: there actually is some bit of rationality in the resistance to taking the larger perspective which is so characteristic for fundamentalists. The core intuition that the world will indeed come crumbling down and no stone will be left unturned is actually... well... true if you're a real die hard fundamentalist.

But it IS possible to see the larger picture. No doubt it is a life-changing event, very much like being born again when you really spent years in emontional investments into a voodoo worldview.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

correction:

'years in emontional investments' is to be replaced by 'decades of emotional investments'.

:-)

[Erich Oliphant]

Hmm, very "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"ish

[Mriana]

I was some where in between sadness and happiness concerning losing what little belief I had and I think I still am- I flip back and forth. While my relatives were/are hard-line Evangelical Fundamentalists, I never was. I was an Episcopal Lay minister after I left home, but after studying various religions and myths I had an "epiphany". It just hit me like a ton of bricks one day while studying Hinduism, much like Fr. Tom Harpur described happened to him while he studied the Horus myth- if you ever heard his story. The Jesus story, is for the most part, rewritten myth set to a particular culture.

As for arguing with people, I try to avoid it, esp with my mother. Still it saddens me that she is so mentally entrenched in Xianity. She has the "God virus" very badly and I've seen so many relatives kill themselves over their Xian beliefs, that it has also disturbed me. I don't see religion as contributing to life, esp. the good life. I find Humanism much more fulfilling.

[kwinter]

My family (except my husband), all just assume I'm a Xian. I have a sister, that I suspect would cease to be my sister if I told her I was an atheist.
I'm kind of in a 'don't ask, don't tell' situation.
Part of me wishes she would ask sometimes (I wouldn't lie to her), but ... she's my sister.
Every visit I always know it could be the last, if she asks the wrong (or right) question.

[Mriana]

Same here, only it is my mother and she imposes her beliefs very strongly without wanting to know what I really believe or rather do not believe. I have to give her lip-service or catch hell even with the slightest discretion from her beliefs. I can spout Spong's ideology, in the hopes of keeping the peace by sitting on the fence, as I tell just a little of what I believe/don't believe and I still get a modern day Inquisition. :( I can't even give her a glimpse into my own worldview, which not only hurts, but saddens me greatly.

[minimalist syntax]

This is sad, especially about your sister. And it is like the epitome of what Christians should not be: judgmental.
Having permanently lost a sister, I can't imagine your sister doing something like that to you. Doesn't she know how precious it is to have a living breathing sister with her, even if you don't think alike? I think it must really be true that fundamentalists think in black and white. You would be either all good or all bad in her eyes. What a shame for you though. It is so hard to have to live a half truth. Why not not join them when they pray before eating? Or would that be too dramatic and doomed to failure as a way of starting the conversation?

[JohnFromCensornati]

That's very similar to my family. Six siblings, three and three. Varying degrees of belief and unbelief.

[myzenthing]

I'm always fascinated by how people as close as siblings can turn out so differently when it come to faith (or lack therof). Why are some people able to lose their faith but others cling to faith so tightly?

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

This aspect of differences within families being often a lot more pronounced than across social strata or other factors is one of the main ideas in

'Born to rebel - birth order, family dynamics and creative lives' by Frank J. Sulloway.

There is no doubt at all that this phenomenon is highly significant - even though it may not explain everything from the reformation to the french revolution and darwinism, as the book argues somewhat boldly.

[GodIs]

Faith cannot conflict with reason or God would require the impossible which would be irrational. Only when we reason from false premises, or make faulty inferences from true premises, does reason conflict with faith. Many have faith confused with credulity and fanaticism which is believing something without evidence or reason.
Faith is the will's reception of the Truth. Unbelief is the will's rejection of obvious Truth.
Unbelief is a mortal sin because all men intuitively know God and nature reveals His existence so they are without excuse.

[Mriana]

Huh? That didn't make any sense at all. I'm back to feeling like a Vulcan who says, "Illogical".

[minimalist syntax]

GodIs does satire of Christian fanatics like Pat Robertson and Brother Jed. But lately his posts don't make much sense even from the point of view of the people he is satirizing.

[kwinter]

Mriana,
GodIs, is not for real. He's been posting comments like this for a long time.
Sometimes his comments are pretty funny, and always "Illogical", but not to be taken seriously.
;)

[ArthurTwoShedsJackson]

In keeping with Valerie Tarico's advice, I say to you: Thanks for sharing.

That is all.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

'Never look at gift horse in the mouth' (from GodIs' bio)

Yes. And certainly you should never look a gift T-Rex in the mouth.

[minimalist syntax]

Especially not if it is less than 6,000 years old

[Erich Oliphant]

"all men intuitively know God", "nature reveals His existence" premises in serious need of some support.

"Faith is the will's reception of the Truth", Huh?

"Unbelief is a mortal sin", always a lovely sentiment. You are condemned to worse fate than repentant murderers and rapists, forever, for simply using the same thought process in ascertaining, defining something as profound as your worldview, with the same tools you use to say, make sure the dealer's not ripping you off on that "previously owned" Camry.

Amen

[Erich Oliphant]

Oh it's a joke.

Kudos for getting me worked up :)

[Dap]

Dear Valerie,
Thank you for another outstanding post, this one was worth waiting for, and I am glad to see it is 5.75 of 6. Be well, your in-put on the threads is missed. Agape, da

[minimalist syntax]

truly! I second the 5.75 of 6 part. It gives us so much to discuss! Thank you.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

same here

[HeevenSteven]

Why can't we have 7, or even 8 out of 6? We can just have faith.

[JohnFromCensornati]

See? You're starting to understand this Real Christian Theology. There are no rules. Join us brother Steven.