02.02.09
The Importance of Doubt in Religious Belief
I have just been reading Gordon Allport’s The Individual and His Religion. I had this book once before - it was required reading for a college course way back in the seventies - and here I have had to buy it again! I dont’ know how much of it I understood way back then but I sure got a lot out of it this time!
Just over half-way through there is a chapter entitled The Nature of Doubt in which Allport makes some very important points - especially as they relate to the belief stages. Allport speaks of what he calls “verbal realism” as a stage when a child, for example, fails to realize that there is a difference between words and facts - that the two are not identical. Thus he believes just about everything he hears - especially if it comes from a seemingly credible source. This kind of primitive credulity exists when either the experience of the listener is limited or when the “prestige of the speaker arouses almost hypnotic deference.” (p. 114) This form of belief implies a sort of relinquishing of responsibility on the part of the believer to the speaker. The believer just accepts what the supposed leader says and fails to think it through for himself. This form of belief can also be roughtly equated to the “Faithful” stage (Stage 2) of religious development. And this I am afraid is the type of belief many of the organized religions are trying to promote.
With greater experience or greater awareness, the person begins to detect holes in the reality that was presented to him on faith alone and he starts to test the truths he has been handed against the reality of his own experience. Thus, when “pennies have not fallen from heaven in response to a self-centered prayer, or when miracles are denied at a time when they would prove convenient“ (p. 115) doubt arises. This doubting relates to our “Rational” Stage (or Stage 3) It is a more mature stance than the “verbal realism” stage mentioned above where everything a religious authority says is just accepted “on faith.” That is to say - even if the doubt involves rejection of religion, it is STILL a more mature stage than one in which responsibility for faith decisions is handed simply to a religious authority without personal investigation or consideration of some sort. Quoting from the book: “Unless the individual doubts he cannot use his full intelligence, and unless he uses his full intelligence he cannot develop a mature sentiment.” (p. 116) There you have it! Yet another proponent of this pattern - belief, doubt or questioning, then a more mature type of faith.
So that makes about the thirteenth example (that I have found so far!) of religious specialists over various centuries who have said that blind acceptance of religion from the hands of a religious leader is NOT the most mature type of faith. Why then is this the type of faith so many of the traditional churches seem to be promoting?? Why don’t they want to encourage spiritual maturity in their congregations? Could it be that their preachers and such have not studied theology in an open, investigative manner? Could it be that the clergy need to encourage spiritual immaturity among their people in order to assure themselves of a job?
With these words Allport begins to hint at the ”Mystic” level (or Stage Four) of faith: “A faith centered in self-interest is bound to break up. To endure at all it must envisage a universe that extends beyond the personal whim and is anchored in values that transcend the immediate interest of the individual as interpreted by himself.” (p. 120) Does this not sound like the expanding, widening circle of compassion of the Mystic? But Allport is awfully vague about there being any such thing as the Mystic level. He writes as though he assumes everyone but the child IS AT the Mystic level: “Conceivably the parent and the church school might do a better job…in assisting the child over the successive collisions of belief and experience, and in helping him identify religion with a positve attitude toward life rather than with immature images and interests.” (p. 115) DO YA’ THINK?
In the long run, IF the churches did a better job in handling doubt, if not promoting it, they could perhaps avoid all those apostates in the stories on my blog of people who moved away from their church. If the Rationals knew there was a way to support their own investigations and accept their own doubts without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater by separating themselves from religion altogether, much of the strife surrounding religion could be avoided as well.
Jairo Mejia said,
July 20, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Dear friend:
You might be one of those who are abandoning Christianity; one for whom religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. You might be right, at least to some extent. Some traditional beliefs are not true, and the “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. Most people don’t dare to confront their religious beliefs, and opt for the status quo, afraid of abandoning the “certainty” of their convictions. Most have become marginalized from the institutional Church, and try to find an environment in which they may fill a vacuum in their lives.
An illuminating book gives hope to you! The author accepted the challenge of finding the One who is recognized, even by Gnostics and atheists—the Existence. “Christianity Reformed From its Roots – A Life Centered in God” is perhaps a generation ahead of the current mentality, but you might find that there is something for you, too!
Bishop John Shelby Spong says of this book that it “rightly points out that those who seek to defend Christianity’s past are also killing Christianity’s future.” You may see two reviews of the book (links below) by eminent philosophers and thinkers that might give you an idea if this book is an insightful reading for you. You might look also at excerpts of the book at this link of Amazon.com.
Sincerely,
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest - Author
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
MPJ said,
July 22, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Thank you for your comment and your recommendation. I believe the point of your book and the point I am trying to make are almost the same thing: That the God of the mainline traditions was never meant to be a literal reality, but a metaphor for something much broader, something that can apply to people of all faiths. But how to define that Entity? Certainly the God the atheists reject is the literal one of the mainline churches. I feel if only someone would point this out in language people of all beliefs could relate to, we could do away with a lot of the religious intolerance we have to put up with now.
I agree that the concept we are discussing is something like a generation ahead of the current mentality, but if you can excuse the inelegant means by which I am able to express myself on these matters, I am doing what I can to move it forward.
I am familiar with Spong. I will look into your book, though I feel I already understand your premise. Meanwhile if you have any suggestions for how I can better express this concept to a more general public (I am trying to soften the edges between believers and non-believers because of this discrepancy in definition of God) I would greatly appreciate hearing them.
Best regards,
Margaret Johnston