I think a pair of concepts that can illuminate the processes that go into people’s acquiring and defending their religious beliefs are the scientific concepts of “context of discovery” (how a scientist originally came up with a theory) and the “context of justification” (how the developed theory is defended in the scientific community). Theories have all kinds of origins – rational observations, gut feelings, lucky breaks in the lab, pervious theories, discussions with other scientists, etc. One can often never be able to put a finger on an actual, specific, definable origin. A theory can “pop into one’s mind” or it can develop over long periods of time. The context of justification, on the other hand, is a deliberately thought out, carefully worded, logical explanation of why the theory makes sense, and purposefully presented in a way that invites criticism.
If we translated this into the context of religious belief we’d get something like this - “context of discovery” (how one acquires one’s religious belief) and “context of justification” (the rational arguments one uses to defend that belief when challenged). Just as in the scientific version, the actual defense can be significantly different that the experiences that lead to the belief, so in religion the various events, influences, social contexts and such can vary significantly from rational arguments defending that belief, such as “proofs” that Biblical stories have historical backgrounds, attempts to use events cited later in the Bible as being foretold by earlier texts, etc.
Here’s where I think it gets interesting. In the scientific world, NO ONE REALLY CARES how you came up with your theory (context of discovery), and it plays NO PART WHATSOEVER in whether it is accepted by other scientists. Every scientists knows the sloppy, messy context of discovery and acknowledges it happens, but they know it’s totally irrelevant. No scientist ever says – “Sure your theory is logically flawless, but we don’t like the way you came up with it!” In many, if not most cases, the origin is totally forgotten, and the proof becomes the “living” aspect of the theory.
In the context of religion, on the other hand, it is the “context of discovery” that gives the REAL power to belief. Religious people don’t spend their time logically defending their belief, much less inviting criticism. What do they do? Engage in personal and social re-enforcement – reading (and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading texts), group prayer, group singing, social gatherings, nebulous (but emotionally VERY powerful) appeals to “faith,” sense of belonging, personal and social support, etc. Active participation in a religious culture is essentially A CONTINUAL, NEVER-ENDING CONTEXT OF DISCOVERY.
The “context of justification” only comes into play (if ever!) when a non-believer points out logical problems with the belief system. So when atheists pull their hair out in frustration over religious people who just can’t seem to appreciate theory logical proofs that the religion is bunk, they are not realizing that these arguments, ideas, etc. PLAY NO PART WHATSOEVER in the person’s actual belief – because the “belief” is not based on a set of logical arguments – it is a living, flowing, emotionally charged personal and social world.
If this make sense, then I think it also makes sense that when a person DOES “fall away” from religion, it is either because the ongoing “context of discover” is either does not satisfy the persons emotional and social needs (or, perhaps more likely, their needs are not powerful enough in the first place), or it is a rare person whose logical thinking really can overpower the ongoing “context of discovery.”
I’m not presenting this as some kind of sociological theory, but simply as a way I’ve come to try and understand the nature of religious belief.
Any thoughts?
If we translated this into the context of religious belief we’d get something like this - “context of discovery” (how one acquires one’s religious belief) and “context of justification” (the rational arguments one uses to defend that belief when challenged). Just as in the scientific version, the actual defense can be significantly different that the experiences that lead to the belief, so in religion the various events, influences, social contexts and such can vary significantly from rational arguments defending that belief, such as “proofs” that Biblical stories have historical backgrounds, attempts to use events cited later in the Bible as being foretold by earlier texts, etc.
Here’s where I think it gets interesting. In the scientific world, NO ONE REALLY CARES how you came up with your theory (context of discovery), and it plays NO PART WHATSOEVER in whether it is accepted by other scientists. Every scientists knows the sloppy, messy context of discovery and acknowledges it happens, but they know it’s totally irrelevant. No scientist ever says – “Sure your theory is logically flawless, but we don’t like the way you came up with it!” In many, if not most cases, the origin is totally forgotten, and the proof becomes the “living” aspect of the theory.
In the context of religion, on the other hand, it is the “context of discovery” that gives the REAL power to belief. Religious people don’t spend their time logically defending their belief, much less inviting criticism. What do they do? Engage in personal and social re-enforcement – reading (and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading texts), group prayer, group singing, social gatherings, nebulous (but emotionally VERY powerful) appeals to “faith,” sense of belonging, personal and social support, etc. Active participation in a religious culture is essentially A CONTINUAL, NEVER-ENDING CONTEXT OF DISCOVERY.
The “context of justification” only comes into play (if ever!) when a non-believer points out logical problems with the belief system. So when atheists pull their hair out in frustration over religious people who just can’t seem to appreciate theory logical proofs that the religion is bunk, they are not realizing that these arguments, ideas, etc. PLAY NO PART WHATSOEVER in the person’s actual belief – because the “belief” is not based on a set of logical arguments – it is a living, flowing, emotionally charged personal and social world.
If this make sense, then I think it also makes sense that when a person DOES “fall away” from religion, it is either because the ongoing “context of discover” is either does not satisfy the persons emotional and social needs (or, perhaps more likely, their needs are not powerful enough in the first place), or it is a rare person whose logical thinking really can overpower the ongoing “context of discovery.”
I’m not presenting this as some kind of sociological theory, but simply as a way I’ve come to try and understand the nature of religious belief.
Any thoughts?
