On Saturday night we watched EXPELLED, with comedian Ben Stein, who is a Jewish theist (I don't know if he is "practicing" or not). The goal of this movie is to show how atheistic Darwinism has squelched free inquiry and operates today from a premise about the origin of life that is unprovable. I think most theists will want to cheer.
Neither movie attempts to be unbiased, but here is one fascinating aspect. Both men relate passionately to the suffering of the Holocaust and each places the primary blame on the other's side. So, Maher says it was a religious atrocity, or at least religious believers were the ones committing the majority of atrocious acts. Stein says that Darwinism was the underlying and driving theoretical basis of the Holocaust.
Both men seem right about the Holocaust which in part confirmed for me, a belief I've had for several years.
Here it is: I believe that most people believe what they WANT to believe.
This statement is circular. I can't even begin to prove it, and it applies equally to the belief I just stated and to me as much as anyone else. We all could cite examples that appear to contradict this, but I believe that the exceptions prove the rule.
SO… let me explain.
1. Most people do not have the time to really pursue the answers to most questions to great depth. This is true even for intellectual people who like to read and even for experts in one field who don’t have time to really become experts in another field.
2. Most people rely for their answers on human authorities who DO have the time to research their questions; "experts" that we come to trust. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but reading a book by an expert makes us feel like experts, even if the book was only written by someone who read other experts’ books instead of doing their own research.
3. Most of these experts started the same way we do and ultimately came to their conclusions because they already had a position that they had arrived at through the influence of someone who was an expert first; a “professor” so-to-speak.
4. In choosing reliable human authorities, we usually gravitate towards those who confirm what we already believe, unless we are somehow dis-satisfied with our current beliefs, then we gravitate towards those who (like us) might be critical of our current beliefs. That doesn’t mean that the arguments aren’t rational but that we probably start with some sort of commitment (we could say “faith”) before we have our good arguments. Religious dogma or scientific method, it doesn’t matter.
“You cannot criticize any claim to truth except on the basis of a truth that you claim, and with respect to which you suspend criticism.” Lesslie Newbigin
5. There are BRILLIANT people on both sides of most issues: A/theism. Creation/Evolution. Biblical Truth/Historical Criticism. Republican/Democrat. War/Peace. Homosexual Marriage/NO Homosexual Marriage. GrantCitizenship/Deport-&-Build-a-Wall. Jet Li/Bruce Lee. Half-full/Half-empty. Haveyourcake/Eatittoo.
6. Since we can’t really research both sides to the necessary depth, we have to settle down with belief of some expert; probably the one we agreed with at the start. Maybe we forge a half-way-between belief or agnosticism about the issue, but it doesn't really matter.
7. The belief we settle on is the one that is most APPEALING to us, at that point in time and the appeal of the belief is NOT the result of our own cogent reasoning or research.
8.It most likely has to do with perceived self-interest of some kind. In other words, its about what I want deep down. This want might be subconscious, it might be a matter of connection or distance (ie. I want to feel that I am a part of my: family, nation, party, church, social group OR I want to distance myself from these), it might be sexual (I want the belief that allows me the most freedom), or it might be financially motivated. That doesn't mean that the position is irrational. Wanting our view of the world to remain intact, is rational. So is wanting to change our life if it's unpleasant. However, in all of these cases the prime motivator for belief is not a commitment to reason, facts or certainty (which may be over-rated anyway).
9. We may believe that we believe something because of a real experience that we have had, but why did we interpret our experience in such a way that it confirmed or refuted a particular belief? For instance, I believe that the spirit of God can reveal things to people. I have had experiences to confirm my belief in God, but my belief in God preceded the experience and shaped my interpretation. Again, that’s not bad. That’s just the way it is, 99+% of the time; even for experts and scholars and comedians. People may claim to have undeniable experiences, but I wager that undeniability has as much to do with desire as reason. Even in the Bible, people who have direct encounters with God, doubt.
10. Nonetheless, some things are true and others are not. Conversions and paradigm changes do happen, for good or for ill. Some experts and comedians are right. Others are wrong. Therefore, so are we. That’s why we have to be careful! I believe in believing, and reading and even arguing and advocating. But if I’m right, then the crucial question isn’t: “How do I know my belief is right?” but, “How do I know if my wants are right?”
