The tiny Kansas congregation is, of course, infamous for protesting at events such as soldiers' funerals and gay pride parades, bearing hateful signs such as "God Hates Fags" and "You're Going to Hell." Megan Phelps-Roper was something of a rising star within the congregation, a true-believer, and so her defection came as something of a surprise to Jeff Chu, the author of profile.
There are a number of things about her story that caught my attention. One, of course, was the courage it took this young woman to leave everything she knew for a world in which there was no certainty, no script but the one she wrote for herself. In some ways what she describes is familiar to me, resonating with what I see in the college students I teach every day: young adults who have left home for the first time, who are wrestling with questions of identity, with what they believe, and who are trying to chart a course into an undiscovered future.
But in Megan Phelps-Roper's case, all of these things are magnified both by the scope of the change and by the simple fact that this move into the wider world was never part of any script. College students leave home on a journey of self-discovery, but for most of them that journey is itself part of the script they've inherited from their families. Having a hand in writing their own script is, paradoxically, part of a script. They've planned for it, anticipated it with growing eagerness and fear, for years.
But for Megan Phelps-Roper, the script had always been "Stay with us, believe as we believe. Don't venture forth, because all the truths worth knowing and goods worth having are already right here."
Another thing that struck me about this story has direct bearing on some of the recurring themes of this blog. This young woman had been carefully and--it seemed--successfully schooled in the insular worldview of Westboro church. And yet, unlike others within the church, her true belief became doubt, and doubt became the seeds of transformation. And what was it that triggered this process, breaking open the hermetic seals and so allowing in something new?
“My doubts started with a conversation I had with David Abitbol,” she says. Megan met David, an Israeli web developer who’s part of the team behind the blog Jewlicious, on Twitter. “I would ask him questions about Judaism, and he would ask me questions about church doctrine. One day, he asked a specific question about one of our signs—‘Death Penalty for Fags’—and I was arguing for the church’s position, that it was a Levitical punishment and as completely appropriate now as it was then. He said, ‘But Jesus said’—and I thought it was funny he was quoting Jesus—‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ And then he connected it to another member of the church who had done something that, according to the Old Testament, was also punishable by death. I realized that if the death penalty was instituted for any sin, you completely cut off the opportunity to repent. And that’s what Jesus was talking about.”One thing that strikes me about this passage is that Megan Phelps-Roper had the seeds of her transformation--what I think of as her redemption--planted by reasoning. She had a conversation, and someone laid out an argument. And the argument made her think, and rethink, and ultimately turn a broader critical eye on the things she believed. There are those who say that what philosophers do never makes a difference, that arguments never convince anyone, that what you need is something else.
And it may well be that an argument alone is never enough, that experiences that challenge one's ways of thinking are crucial. But sometimes those experiences lie dormant, effectively suppressed by explaining-away tactics, until the right argument comes along.
But even more important than this is the nature of the argument itself. Megan Phelps-Roper's transformation didn't come from the disdainful objections of someone arguing for the absurdity of her worldview based on the standards of an opposing one. It didn't come from P.Z. Myers' mockery. And while it came from a Jew, it didn't come from a Jew who was objecting to her arguments based on Jewish standards at odds with Christian ones. Instead, it came when he stepped into her belief system--first asking questions about it, attempting to understand it, attempting to see it from the inside. And when he finally asked a critical question, the critical question was rooted within the framework of that worldview's own assumptions. The transformative argument came when a Jew invoked the words of Jesus.
This, of course, is the Socratic approach. But it also describes the Hegelian understanding of how worldviews evolve, how we move forward and make progress in our beliefs. So long as you criticize alien worldviews based on an uncritical embrace of the hidden assumptions that underlie your own, you will neither make progress in your own worldview nor inspire movement in the thinking of those you criticize. Your dogmatism will be met by a reactive dogmatism on the other side.
Progress is made in philosophical conversations when those who embrace a worldview are inspired to critically reflect on their own worldview. Meaningful transformations are those that come from within, a kind of internal evolution in which one's own standards of critical reflection lead to the transformation of one's worldview, including those very critical standards themselves.
This doesn't mean that outsiders to a worldview cannot be helpful--even uniquely helpful--in guiding the development of the ideas of those with whom they disagree. Rather, it means that an outsider's view is most helpful, most powerful, to the extent that the outsider can step within an alien worldview and try to understand what it looks like from the inside. Because the outsider is not invested in the worldview in the same way, the outsider may see things that those who are living out the worldview are afraid to notice. But a sincere attempt to see things as the other person does--in short, a sincere exercise of intellectual as well as emotional empathy--is crucial for a critical comment to really trigger the kind of internal work that leads to substantive change.
In other words, as theists and atheists converse, and as different religions come into contact, the greatest progress happens when each side sincerely attempts to understand the other, and when each side attempts to offer criticism that, rather than dogmatically embracing assumptions the other side doesn't accept, aims to invite the other to look for ways to achieve greater consistency within their own worldview and greater integrity within their own lives.
When Megan Phelps-Roper left Westboro Baptist Church, it was clearly an act of courage. But it was also an act of integrity.
Eric-
ReplyDeleteI think this concentration on honey and understanding is a strong sign that you are talking about a psychological process, not a philosophical one. If evidence were the criterion, then sharp controversy would be the most efficient way to go. But if feelings and imaginative fantasies are the criterion, then yes, getting into the other person's shoes and mind are essential elements of pursuasion.
The point seems to be to pursuade people to "want" to hold some view. The basis being congeniality, pragmatism, hope, and the like. But whatever happened to compelling argument in the philosophical mode? From evidence & reason? Are you offering psychotherapy, or truth? I agree that truth can be served up in many ways, but one shouldn't lose sight of it entirely as one seeks pursuasion, of others or of one's self. And if the truth doesn't make such a great story or therapy, but just makes sense... what then? Isn't it just possible that humans are so constructed that we may prefer a certain types of dramatic/pleasant story to accurate ones?
In this case, reason had an interesting role. This person was so enveloped in a toxic psycho-narrative that pricking its internal inconsistency was both easy and, for once, effective. But how many times must, say, atheists point out the countless internal inconsistencies of other bizarre religious world views for their purveyors to double-take on their own assumptions, rather than blithely replying that, once you believe in god, everything is possible and everything automagically makes sense? Then we have Mr. Novak, (and) earnestly intoning that the absurdity of religion is its glory- that doubt is just such a great reason to believe!
"But whatever happened to compelling argument in the philosophical mode? From evidence & reason? Are you offering psychotherapy, or truth? I agree that truth can be served up in many ways, but one shouldn't lose sight of it entirely as one seeks pursuasion, of others or of one's self. And if the truth doesn't make such a great story or therapy, but just makes sense... what then?"
DeleteAs we've discussed before on this blog, part of the problem with appealing to "reason and evidence" is that we don't always agree on what the standards of evidence are--and that our worldviews often play a crucial role in defining those standards for us. In saying this, I am emphatically NOT endorsing relativism about evidence. I think Westboro's standards of evidence are wrong. The question is how you break into a worldview that has its own standards of evidence. You DON'T do that effectively by assuming the standards of evidence that flow from your own worldview (which--guess what?--might be wrong, too) and tear down the opposing worldview based on these standards of evidence. That will just motivate an "equal and opposite reaction"--they'll tear apart your worldview based on their standards of evidence. Both will proudly wear the mantle of "truth" as if the truth is easily discerned and the only question is whether truth is what we care about most. I believe there is a truth of the matter, but I also think that the best way to move us towards truth involves internal evolution, which is facilitated when we engage with outsider-critics who are able to understand our viewpoint and speak to it critically--but in a way that doesn't simply presuppose alien standards we don't see why we should accept.
Eric-
Delete"The question is how you break into a worldview that has its own standards of evidence. You DON'T do that effectively by assuming the standards of evidence that flow from your own worldview (which--guess what?--might be wrong, too) and tear down the opposing worldview based on these standards of evidence. ...
I believe there is a truth of the matter, but I also think that the best way to move us towards truth involves internal evolution, which is facilitated when we engage with outsider-critics who are able to understand our viewpoint and speak to it critically--but in a way that doesn't simply presuppose alien standards we don't see why we should accept. "
This seems unnecessarily ornate, from a logical standpoint. If someone's standards- say, mystical feelings in my navel- are ludicrous, then wouldn't one make headway by arguing against such poor evidential standards directly?
That is, if the issue were standards at all, rather than blatant rationalization of one's received or preferred narrative which has been adopted for all sorts of psychological reasons (... "hope") having nothing to do with philosophy, indeed often rather painfully opposed to decent philosophy.
I guess what I am saying is that there are indeed extremely strong psychological issues in play here, and we should recognize that as the central element of religion, for all its false fronting as philosophy.
Burk, I think you miss part of the point here: that it takes outsiders to help one progress in seeing the internal inconsistencies in one's own belief system. Thus, what the post is saying, is that you need theists just like they need you. Additionally, the vast majority of humans are just not wired to act like you want them to, and look at life from the cold, hard truths of "reason."
ReplyDelete"...it takes outsiders to help one progress in seeing the internal inconsistencies in one's own belief system."
DeleteYes--although I would add that not every outsider perspective is as helpful. This post focuses on ONE kind of outsider perspective that has, I think, has particular promise. There's also the outsider who is good at helping you to see things through their eyes so vividly that, when you return to your own perspective, you are able to inhabit it in a new (and more discerning) way.
"...the vast majority of humans are just not wired to act like you want them to, and look at life from the cold, hard truths of 'reason.'"
This may be a cold, hard truth about humanity...
Well said, Eric!
ReplyDeleteVery well said.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether David really moved Megan to see an inconsistency in her worldview. After all she could have answered that by calling for the death of fags she was not casting any stones buy obeying God’s commands in the Bible. So perhaps something deeper is going on here; and the inconsistency is just some evident sign of it.
Trying myself to understand how come so many intelligent and knowledgeable people embrace naturalism, which in my view is vastly inferior to theism on several levels, I have come to the conclusion that there are multiple viable metaphysical worldviews. By “viable” I mean those worldviews which fit with the whole of one’s experience of life, including one’s subjective feelings, what seems to be reasonable, one’s intuitions, small voices inside, the whole thing. But then any viable worldview is unfalsifiable. When confronted with one counterargument one simply checks to see where that argument goes wrong when set against one’s viable worldview. It may be a false premise or some invalid epistemic principle it uses. In this context it is striking that there are cases of expert naturalists who find it easy to deny the validity of classical logic or even that propositions have meaning (I am thinking of physicist Lawrence Krauss and of philosopher Alex Rosenberg respectively).
Given that epistemic fact about the human condition, namely that various worldviews are unfalsifiable and self-confirming, I hold that belief is ultimately a matter of one’s sovereign will. One ultimately chooses what one wants to believe. Thus, what one believes tells something about who one is (and moreover of how one experiences life, for worldviews affect how one experiences). If I am right in this then when people are moved to change their worldview it is because they are moved to will differently. And I think a deep fact about human nature is that beauty exerts the most powerful pull on our will. Thus, in my interpretation of the story of Megan and David, what moved her change of mind (or “repentance”) was her seeing in David’s position some striking beauty. Similarly I think it was seeing the beauty in the moral message of Christ and in the integrity of His life that moved the disciples into believing in Him. And later it was the same effect that moved the first Christians to follow the disciples. Fundamentally it’s beauty that moves belief.
I agree with basic ideas expressed here, as I'm sure you know. I agree that there are multiple kinds of holistic interpretations of the world that do a comparable job of integrating the diverse aspects of our human experience into a coherent unity. I agree that in choosing among these, aesthetic issues are important if not crucial.
DeleteTwo points. First, That multiple kinds of worldviews do comparably well in terms of integrating experience does not mean that all kinds do so. There may be worldviews that fall apart once one begins to critically assess them in terms of internal coherence and fit with experience.
Second, there's a difference between a certain kind of worldview and a specific instance of a worldview of that kind. Within a species of worldview, reasoning and argumentation can call for refinements and development. If you have embraced a worldview of a "valid" kind, while it is unlikely that you will be forced by any rational argument to abandon that kind of worldview for another kind, I think you may very well be called upon by arguments and evidence to modify elements of your specific worldview while retaining a worldview of the same kind. This is perhaps best described as modifying or refining rather than abandoning one's worldview.
Eric,
DeleteYes, in your book “Is God a delusion?” you explain that religious belief is not so much based on reason as on choice. It is based on one’s value judgments and courage. I only extend this to cover non-religious beliefs also. It seems to me that our deepest beliefs, whether religious or not religious, are freely chosen and thus an expression of how we are.
Our value judgments though are moved by beauty, or are perhaps always about beauty. Famously the OT says that God is truth, and the NT says that God is love. It is less known but I think equally significant that according to the Quran God is beauty. Can you recommend any good sources about beauty in the context of epistemology, or of the place of beauty in theism in general or in Christinanity in particular?
As for the two points you mention, are they relevant to the hell-bound Christianity, we both disagree with? How is a Christian to liberate herself of such a distorting view? I haven’t yet read your latest book, but which would you say of the two points would be more relevant in this context?
In GOD'S FINAL VICTORY (which should be out in paperback soon--April if my information is correct), John Kronen and I challenge the doctrine of hell from within an essentially conservative Christian framework. So, this would be a case in which we argue that Christians should refine or modify their worldview to do away with the doctrine of eternal damnation. That is, what our arguments call for is replacing one species of Christianity ("hellist" species) with another ("universist" species).
DeleteThe relation between aesthetics and epistemology is one I've thought about a bit but not yet researched. I'm likely to do so when I complete my current projects. If I hit upon a good resource, I'll try to remember to mention it here.
Love.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts, Eric!
ReplyDeleteDianelos,
ReplyDeleteA very good book on the matter of beauty and it's place and importance for Christian theology is David B. Hart's, "The Beauty of the Infinite."
Darrell,
DeleteThanks very much for the recommendation. Hart’s book looks like difficult reading but also like worth the effort.
Beauty is an extremely important concept for me. You see I hold that it is not true that God is invisible. Rather God is visible in all that is beautiful in our experience of life. Or, somehow more precisely: The way that people around us are not really visible but become apparent and identifiable to us through our seeing their physical bodies, in the same God becomes apparent and identifiable to us through all the beauty we experience. Beauty is God’s visible body as it were. And in the same way we interact with and come to know people by relating to their bodies, one can interact and come to know God by relating and focusing on the beauty that there is in one’s life.
So thanks again. I will certainly make the effort to read Hart’s book about the beauty of Christianity. Meanwhile though I have started reading his “Atheist Delusions” about the history of the first centuries of Christianity and how it is misrepresented by the fashionable atheism of our times.
Dianelos,
ReplyDeleteHart is difficult but worth it. Many consider him to be America's best theologian. I have also read "Atheist Delusions"-a great book. And I agree with you that beauty is critical to the narrative of Christianity and its best (but not only) apologetic.
"Beauty will save the world." -Dostoevsky