All of us grow up once: we pass through a process of socialization. We learn about right and wrong and good and bad from our parents, then from our teachers or religious guides. Gradually, we are instilled with the common sense that conservative writers like Edmund Burke and Samuel Johnson thought of as a great collective work. To them, common sense is infused with all that has been learned over time through trial and error, human frustration, sorrow and joy. In fact, a well-socialized being is something like a work of art.
Yet for many people, the process of socialization doesn't quite work. The values they acquire from all the well-meaning authorities don't fit them. And it is these people who often become obsessed readers. They don't read for information, and they don't read for beautiful escape. No, they read to remake themselves. They read to be socialized again, not into the ways of their city or village this time but into another world with different values. Such people want to revise, or even to displace, the influence their parents have had on them. They want to adopt values they perceive to be higher or perhaps just better suited to their natures.
As an "obsessed reader," I count myself among the revisers.
Every now and then I pause to reflect that as little as ten years ago I used to vacuum up utter bilge like Frank Peretti novels, Dave Hunt screeds, Texe Marrs conspiracy theories, completely unaware of their lack of reality, never mind literary merit. (Later, in college, I even got into heated dorm debates about Peter Duesberg's crap; I apologize to all involved.) These were not a necessary component of my Christian upbringing, in which reading, especially reading scripture, was modeled and encouraged by loving, God-fearing parents. But since indoctrination was emphasized over education, and obeisant acceptance of "the Truth" over critical analysis, I had no experience, no critical faculty for seeing garbage for what it was.
"Train up a child in the way he should go," the Good Book says, "and when he is old he will not depart from it." Every proverb has its exception. Thanks to a college education, free libraries, and the all-magical internet, I can marvel at my former days of innocent ignorance, and know that they're gone for good, in both senses of the phrase. And, in adopting a healthy skepticism, I haven't abandoned the values my parents tried to instill--honesty, integrity, hard work, loyalty, love--but I no longer search for divine wisdom in a centuries-old mishmash of history and myth.
8 comments:
"...Dave Hunt screeds, Texe Marrs conspiracy theories..."
Yeeesh. I empathize with the Frank Peretti's novels, but man, I've got nothing but sympathy for you here. These guys sound awful.
Interestingly, I have had no problems with the *same* indoctrination I received. In fact, I find (and have found) it quite beneficial. I don't consider it an education, nor do I fault my parents for it. Simply put, what recourse is there for children besides indoctrination? After all, all thinking begins with authority. I take it that everyone believe numerous things on authority and in fact begins their educational process from this standpoint (at least if the goal is knowledge and not merely more questions).
I don't think I'm saying anything specifically Christian. One could look to Aristotle's Nic Ethics for a sort of defense of indoctrination of moral principles. For an updated argument for this, see Lewis's Abolition of Man.
It's in some ways funny to me that you disavow your indoctrination while I appreciate mine. Mine prepared me to understand and appreciate the depths of the Christian intellectual and cultural tradition--an appreciation, I think, that is difficult to have when you stand outside of it. I can't imagine Dante meaning as much if I thought the basic premise false--God is love and draws all men to himself.
I'm not "faulting" my parents--that would be to claim they did something wrong, really, and I don't think they did. They did the best they could, given their knowledge, their abilities, and their beliefs. But their basic worldview was limited, as you are well aware. When you'd come home from college, you'd often have the same sort of discussions with them that I did, but, interestingly, from a different slant. Yours came from a more intellectual (and dare I say rational?) form of Christianity; mine came from a position of nascent agnosticism. But the results were the same: discomfort, disruption, dissonance, until differences were worked out--or, in my case, are still being worked out.
As to the value of indoctrination: sure, it's a starting point. Facts are the foundation of knowledge, and we have to trust others when we learn them. But as I stated, if it's the primary substance of one's upbringing, it means tools are missing from the mental kit.
At some point even Christian parents should strongly teach their kids to question authority, even religious authority, unless they want them to fall prey to cult leaders or abusive pastors. Religion is a human enterprise, after all.
All I have to say is a condesending "goyum."
I didn't mean to suggest that you were faulting our parents. I don't think you were. It's the last paragraph that concerns me:
"At some point even Christian parents should strongly teach their kids to question authority, even religious authority, unless they want them to fall prey to cult leaders or abusive pastors. Religion is a human enterprise, after all."
First, I don't know what it means when you say "Religion is a human enterprise..." Second, it seems like you want this to follow from the danger of falling prey to cults and I can't make sense of how it might. Finally, why is questioning authority a requisite for good thinking? I don't think I've ever once strongly questioned the authority of the Church and Scripture, and yet I don't think I'm any less justified in adopting the truth claims contained therein. In fact, I think I have a great amount of warrant. If the goal is attainment of truth, then it is not necessary to question authority in the way you suggest. Questioning authority is not one of the intellectual tools that is necessary for truth obtainment--even though accepeting things on authority very well might be, as you yourself seemed to accept.
One final thing: when I mentioned indoctrination, I was not merely speaking of teaching facts. I was speaking of instilling an entire worldview in another (a child) so that they have something to compare other ideas and concepts to. This seems a very different thing than fact-transmission. It includes attitudes, images, specific ways of thinking, a conceptual vocabulary, etc.
To thetachyix: Hey, it's not like we gentiles can choose our parents.
To g.k.c.:
First, I don't know what it means when you say "Religion is a human enterprise..." Quite plainly, it's made up and run by humans, who are fallible. Priests, ministers, pastors, elders, imams, televangelists, you name it. The books, the rituals, the beliefs, all studied, performed, mediated by humans. I take it as obvious and non-controversial, given the history of belief in all its forms.
Second, it seems like you want this to follow from the danger of falling prey to cults and I can't make sense of how it might.Knowing someone who *did* fall prey to a cult, it makes perfect sense to me. When a persuasive religious authority says "read it, understand it this way," and you have been conditioned to accept that sort of authority, how will you resist? More heinous, when a persuasive religious authority tells you to do something you fear may be wrong, but you are conditioned to accept that sort of authority, how will you follow your conscience?
Finally, why is questioning authority a requisite for good thinking? It wouldn't be necessary if authorities weren't human, I suppose, but they are, and they're often wrong.
I don't think I've ever once strongly questioned the authority of the Church and Scripture, and yet I don't think I'm any less justified in adopting the truth claims contained therein. In fact, I think I have a great amount of warrant.Of course you won't question your indoctrination, because you believe it effected the proper end; the logic creates a tight circle, doesn't it? (As George W. put it, "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe--I believe what I believe is right.")
Put your words in the mouth of a Muslim: "I don't think I've ever once strongly questioned the authority of the imams and the Qu'ran, and yet I don't think I'm any less justified in adopting the truth claims contained therein. In fact, I think I have a great amount of warrant." I'm curious--how would you respond to the Muslim?
If the goal is attainment of truth, then it is not necessary to question authority in the way you suggest.Only if you are already certain that your dogmatism is correct, which is fine, if it is; which is not fine, if it is not.
Questioning authority is not one of the intellectual tools that is necessary for truth obtainment--even though accepeting things on authority very well might be, as you yourself seemed to accept.It is only unnecessary, I repeat, if all truth is already known. Why advocate a form of cultic conservatism? Even the Good Book says to "test the spirits." I thought Christians resented being told they were "checking their minds at the door."
I won't be pigeonholed into some sort of extremist position, a hippy-like radicalism that questions all authority ever. Hardly. All I'm calling for is for parents (of any faith, or of none) to go beyond indoctrination. Most great truths, it could be argued, were found as a consequence of questioning authority--religious, scientific, political, academic, whatever. Indoctrination might be a good upbringing for a theologian, but it's a terrible way to raise a scientist or philosopher.
Oh, and your last statement, about "an entire worldview"--part of that, in my parenting philosophy, will be to remind my children that my worldview, and their consequent worldview, is not "entire."
I’ll start with your last comment.
“Oh, and your last statement, about "an entire worldview"--part of that, in my parenting philosophy, will be to remind my children that my worldview, and their consequent worldview, is not "entire."I take it that your worldview is entire—I don’t see how it couldn’t be. Your response to any proposition/event you encounter will come from your perspective on the world—Weltenshaungs are entire. That doesn’t suggest you have the full truth—just that you have a way of looking at EVERYTHING (that in fact you do look at). Isn’t it contradictory to say you have a worldview and then claim it’s not entire? What constitutes “world” for you then?
To the more interesting conversation……
Thank you for your clarification on your statement about religion. I am not sure that the fallibility of humans constitutes adequate grounds to take the epistemic stance I think you are taking (see below), but I have a better sense of what you were saying.
First, I reject that people are “conditioned to accept that sort of authority.” That suggests some sort of brain-washing that prohibits rational thinking. Authority as a philosophical concept is nothing like this (and hence, does not seem to fall prey to the sort of extreme scenario of cults you suggest). Eyewitness testimony is considered one form of authority—but accepting depends upon the “virtue” (ina broad sense—are they generally reliable?) of the witness and (perhaps this is the more crucial aspect) a measure of discernment on the part of the receptor. I’m still working on this, but I am inclined toward virtue epistemology and a virtue-oriented account of authority as a means of providing justification. I’ll offer more pointed remarks (these are quite tentative for me) below. However, the virtue-oriented approach to authority has the advantage of explaining why the Christian Church has only authorized one (maybe two, depending on if you’re Catholic) source of authority. Scripture, the only rule for faith and practice, is the ultimate authority to which we submit.
Regarding circularity, I would love to hear an argument that it is visciously circular. I don’t think that it is at all. The circle is broad enough and admits enough evidence that it is rational. (see William Alston’s Perceiving God).
I'm curious--how would you respond to the Muslim? I would agree that he is justified in his belief. Why wouldn’t he be, if the case is parallel to mine? Mind you, there is no further implication that his belief is in fact true.
Only if you are already certain that your dogmatism is correct, which is fine, if it is; which is not fine, if it is not. 1) Certainty is a psychological predicate, not an epistemological one.
2) I am not advocating “dogmatism” (again, see below).
It is only unnecessary, I repeat, if all truth is already known. Why advocate a form of cultic conservatism? Even the Good Book says to "test the spirits." I thought Christians resented being told they were "checking their minds at the door."
I won't be pigeonholed into some sort of extremist position, a hippy-like radicalism that questions all authority ever. Hardly. All I'm calling for is for parents (of any faith, or of none) to go beyond indoctrination. Most great truths, it could be argued, were found as a consequence of questioning authority--religious, scientific, political, academic, whatever. Indoctrination might be a good upbringing for a theologian, but it's a terrible way to raise a scientist or philosopher.Your final (somewhat antagonistic) statement might also be applied to myself. You have immediately pigeonholed (mischaracterized?) my own position as irrational, as though I am “checking my mind at the door.” I have argued that authority is a helpful means of obtaining truth. Your final sentence suggests that leaving behind authority (yes, I am substituting authority for indoctrination because of the preceeding sentence) is a necessary condition to be a scientist or philosopher. In other words, I understood this conversation as using the concept “indoctrination” as almost synonymous with “imparting beliefs from authority” which is in opposition to “critical thinking with the tools of reason,” of what is necessary for being a scientists and philosopher.
I’ll be even more direct: in your original post, you mention that you have left behind your “innocent ignorance” and seem to suggest that what has taken it’s place is a “healthy skepticism.” At issue is, I think, the possibility of being a rational, truth seeking person while still standing within the bounds of a tradition and authority To put it in question form, shall we approach the truth claims of Christianity with an epistemic posture of belief or of doubt? Generally it is argued that what is necessary to satisfy the conditions of rationalism is doubt—see your “healthy skepticism” vs. *my* “innocent ignorance.” It is this “skeptical attitude” toward the claims of authority (namely, an attitude that says it must be questioned before it can be believed) that I reject. Even though you aren't denigrating authority (which I never accused you of) it seems that you are taking the position that it must be questioned from without in order for a belief in its claims to be considered rational. Now to what must be your burning question: is what I am advocating an irrational fideism? No—and why should a tendency to believe authority (particularly privileged authority’s like Scripture and those people who have demonstrated themselves reliable) be construed as “checking my mind at the door?” I am not suggesting dogmatism (something that I am learning to despise) or irrationalism. What I am advocating is what the Church has advocated since Augustine first espoused it—fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). This entails a responsibility on the part of believers to seek understanding and to answer defeaters and problems for things that we believe (as one of these problems we could easily include religious pluralism!). So there is nothing about “checking my mind at the door” at all in what I am advocating. The appropriate epistemic stance for Christians is (trivially) a Christlike one: confidence and humility—as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves.
If I am guilty (which I FULLY admit the possibility of) of misconstruing your own position, please forgive me. At any rate, I have offered in this diatribe (yes, I do admit to that) my own position and (hopefully!) a clarification of the issues I perceived were at hand.
I'll reiterate one final thing: I do not consider "indoctrination" to be an education--merely a prerequisite for education.
I'm still not satisfied by your answer. The reason I put your claims in the mouth of a Muslim is show how that sort of attitude is fine for justifying one's own beliefs to onself, but wholly inadequate for the purposes of convincing someone else of why their belief system is (or even might be) wrong. Is the correct apologetic strategy, at that point, to leave things as they are, admitting that both positions are rationally justified? Or would you not have to then show, rationally, the defect's in the other's beliefs?
(There's also the problem of an apologetic double standard: the grounds for making someone doubt her religion are often the same grounds for doubting one's own.)
I am not arguing that it is "necessary" to question authority to have rational self-justification, and (I might even grant) to justify one's beliefs to another. However, I will argue that having a faith that is fire-tested (i.e., has gone through rational investigation from an outside perspective, and come out unscathed) is more justified than a faith that is believed on face. This point is disputable, certainly.
Now to what must be your burning question: is what I am advocating an irrational fideism? No—and why should a tendency to believe authority (particularly privileged authority’s like Scripture and those people who have demonstrated themselves reliable) be construed as “checking my mind at the door?” I am not suggesting dogmatism (something that I am learning to despise) or irrationalism. What I am advocating is what the Church has advocated since Augustine first espoused it—fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). This entails a responsibility on the part of believers to seek understanding and to answer defeaters and problems for things that we believe (as one of these problems we could easily include religious pluralism!).Again, all these things can be said with equanimity by a devout Muslim, Mormon, [insert religion here]. All well and good for the person who believes the truth, but not-so-good for the infidel, whoever she might be.
As to the theologian, scientist, and philosopher remark, it was not meant as a slam, but as a practical truth. Science and philosophy are enterprises of doubt--advancement is often made in both fields by the rejection of previous thought systems, and the contesting of accepted authorities. If scientists, say, accepted Newton's Principia as divinely inspired, or if philosophers thought the truth began and ended with Lucretius, both disciplines would be stuck in epistemic ruts. Intellectual progress, at times, requires wholesale doubt, not just reasoned responses to criticisms. Adios to geocentrism, the ether, phlogiston, elan vital.
Generally it is argued that what is necessary to satisfy the conditions of rationalism is doubt—see your “healthy skepticism” vs. *my* “innocent ignorance.”And yes, you did misconstrue my original posting. It was solely about myself--not about you, not about anyone else. My ignorance was innocent (I didn't know any better). Your faith-position is not based on ignorance, and I would be stupid to say so. All I was saying was that in order to grow, intellectually, I had to go out into "the world," so to speak, away from home.
And I tried to point out, in my reply to your comment, that the same was true for you, even if the "result" was different. You wouldn't be the same kind of Christian if you had never gone to Biola. (Have you forgotten all those late-night arguments?) And you even questioned an authority (your dad) on the way to where you are now, even if only tacitly. Of course, you're in a better position to describe this; I'm only reporting what I saw and heard.
As to the "conditioning" remark, it was a bit overblown on my part. It's not about a Skinnerian input-output system. But I'd wager a box of Krispy Kremes that atheists and agnostics are far less likely to join wacky cults, not because they're more intelligent, but because they have a built-in suspicion for religious truth-claims, no matter the source. (Why is it that LDS recruiters, for example, find most of their successes among Christians?)
And maybe "entire" isn't the right word; maybe "flexible" is. For my kids, religion will be an open question, not a given.
(I may have their uncle Josh read to them from the Torah on occasion.)
Post a Comment