How invested are you in a belief?

One of the things I have yet to understand is how someone can become so invested in a belief that evidence to the contrary is ignored. This is particularly troubling in religion but also troubling in the world of political beliefs. I had an interesting experience on Facebook with a political liberal. I won’t go into all of the fallacies that the person believed but I will deal with the final belief in the discussion and his response. What is particularly interesting to me in this account is that his belief is very young. In fact it is probably less than two years old, but it was a part of his culture, the people he talked with and the material he read, so much so that he assumed that if anyone did not believe it they were ignorant. Here are the relevant sections of the conversation so you can get an idea of what I am talking about, as when dealing with political liberals the subject turned to Fox news and then to Sarah Palin.

P: “Are you insinuating that Sarah Palin has ANYTHING to offer the political world? I mean she can see Russia from her house. By golly oh gee EH?”

Me: "I mean she can see Russia from her house" That is funny you think a line from Saturday Night Live is really what Palin said. OK it is not funny just sad.”

P: “Dude are you really this insane or just dont pay attention? She actually SAID THIS and it became a SNL skit. LOL wow. Educate yourself. Do some research or at least read some alternative news sources”

P: “It was in an interview that she said this.”

Me: “P, if only your facts could support you. From Entertainment Weekly: "...and where one deft comment can puncture a national campaign (Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin — including the phrase ''I can see Russia from my house,'' which Palin never uttered — redefined the 2008 vice presidential candidate). Can we go to there?"

“You have been politically inaccurate in most all of your comments from the very beginning when you claimed I was wrong on Reconciliation of budgets. What makes me wonder is what you are reading that makes you so sure you are right when you are constantly factually wrong.”

Me: “oops forgot the link to the EW article so you can read it for yourself, the article after all is on Tina Fey.” http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20324126,00.html

P: Everything snl did in the skits about her came from Sarah palins mouth. That was the beauty of it is the comedic value was so high they used her words word for word.

P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ&feature=related
Ok so maybe she didnt say that she could see it from her house. I have alot of respect for women and especially women who are in powerful positions but this woman didnt even have a grasp of what was going on in her own state! There are very smart men and women and very stupid men and women and she is one of the dumbest women on earth.

P: “I am innacurate because I disagree with your position. Just be honest about it.”

P: “oh I forgot to mention that entertainment weekly is hardly a credible political source Ron”

What is interesting to see in this conversation is the certainty that P was right, then when he finally did a little research and found that Sarah Palin had not said the quote he was sure was word for word he could not understand how he could be viewed as inaccurate. It could not possibly be that he was wrong and demonstrably wrong it was that I simply disagreed and that if I was honest I could admit the fault was mine. Even after he found the youtube section of the interview of Sarah Palin he still felt the need to criticize the source I used to correct him. If you actually Google the question the first hit directs you to Yahoo Answers Did Sarah Palin really say "I can see Russia from my house" ?

Yahoo Answers provides us with the segment of the interview which sparked Tina Fey’s comedy:

"GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along. "

Now think how simple this incorrect understanding of current events is. Based upon recently acquired ideas but they fit the template of the believer…how much more difficult is it to get people to think about religious ideas, things held to for tens or hundreds of years. When a fact can be shown to be wrong the believer in a particular idea will remain wedded to the idea because it is a part of their template of understanding.

That is what we in the Adventist church have to deal with when we deal with Traditional/historic Adventists and that is what many of my fellow Progressive Adventists have to deal with Adventists and other Christians when we ask them to rethink their Atonement theory. So that they don’t have God pouring out His wrath upon Christ who is God as a method for Christ to pay a penalty to God so that God can forgive people. That is probably a 300 year old tradition that came out of a tradition that is 800 years old known as the Satisfaction theory.

The answer I think we most often use is baby steps but how well do baby steps work with those who refuse to question their own beliefs? Somehow we have to teach people how to think critically to actually follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice: “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” A critical thinker is not only critical of other beliefs but willing to think critically about their own beliefs. If your church or school is not teaching you to think critically they are not really doing their job.

Thinking Adventists

Clifford Goldstein writes in his blog entitled Will the Real Thinking Adventist Please Stand up? Part Two (subscription only) about his agreement with Dale Ratzlaff’s statement in Proclamation Magazine. Here is the paragraph from the letters section response that impressed Cliff:

We understand the disappointment and even sadness that you carry as a result of some of your experiences within Adventism. Second, we reiterate the fact that we did not leave Adventism because of hurts or disappointments. We all studied independently. Further, we did not only leave historic Adventism; we also left liberal Adventism that demeans the law, the atonement of Christ, the complete reliability of Scripture, and the sovereign authority of God including His wrath.

Goldstein believes along with Ratzlaff that the Progressive Adventists are those who demean the law, the atonement the reliability of Scripture and the authority of God including His wrath. He writes:

Let’s look, for example, at what the so called “thinking” Adventist does with the “complete reliability of Scripture.” I recently had an article on Daniel 2 in the Review (Oct 16, 2008). Just good old, Daniel 2, kind of a cornerstone of Adventist prophecy. Well, on another blog, one filled with “thinking” Adventists, a blogger went ballistic, attacking the article because I actually was so closed minded to believe what the texts themselves say about when the book was written.

I mean, how could I be so stupid, so narrow, that when the Daniel says--“And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him” (Daniel 2:1) or that “In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters” (Danel 7:1)--I actually believe it? What a non-thinking Adventist I must be!

The blogger noted that there is a good deal of scholarship that places the writing of the book of Daniel between 167 and 164 B.C. Apparently the Bible tells us the date of the writing of books therein. You can’t find those texts however because in fact the Bible generally does not tell us when something was written. We of course don’t even know if the stories necessarily happened or not. Is the story of Jonah or Job based on literal historical occurrences or not. In fact what Goldstein assumes is the real problem. He assumes the book of Daniel was written at the time of the stories in the book. Who knows what reason Daniel then wrote it in a third person perspective.

If the reliability of scriptures is based upon the assumption and traditions then it is not really a case of reliability anymore. It is a case of presuppositions that others may disagree with, as in this case because of numerous reasons a later date for Daniel is indicated. Does this mean that it is somehow trying to denigrate miracles? Well about the only miracle that would be affected would be that the book contains a prophecy of the rise of three kingdoms. Not much of a miracle when you consider that 3 of those kingdoms arose during the period of time that the book covers, the nations being mentioned in the book. Now the other aspect is that people think the book very accurately describes Antiochus Epiphanies. But as an Adventist Goldstein would not care about that because Adventism denies Antiochus as being a fulfillment anyway. And the abomination of desolation as spoken of by Christ would not be affected whether it was written 500 years earlier or not. So even using a later date for the book would not change any of its important prophecies.

Goldstein concludes with this:

The so called “thinking” Adventist is, really, nothing more than a product of the times: the times says this, the “thinking” Adventist thinks this; the times says that, the “thinking” Adventist thinks that. In contrast, the real thinking Adventist steps back, looks at the big picture, has seen in the past how following the times has led folks (and church) astray, and is determined through God’s grace not to fall into the same trap.

Goldstein is trying to put down “thinking” Adventists because they are a product of their education rather then being the product of a church tradition. Unless you hold tightly to a tradition you are bound to be a product of your times. In our case we are products of our time, the information age. Knowledge is more freely accessible now then any time in history. The question then is how one uses the knowledge. The use of knowledge is often termed wisdom, so even though Goldstein likes to belittle Progressive Adventists as dupes who are not thinkers at all while those who hold to tradition are the real thinkers he does a poor job of making the case. After all someone who calls light darkness and evil good has a real selling job to do.

What about Ratzlaff’s other statements; is Progressive Adventism really out to demean the law, the atonement, the reliability of Scripture and the authority of God including His wrath. We would have to ask for some specifics here to really understand what he means. By law does he mean we don’t believe that the Sabbath has to be Saturday or that we must not light a fire or use electricity on the Sabbath. Do we demean the law if we don’t follow it the ways the orthodox Jews do? Who knows what he means, as far as I know he no longer does church on Saturday and instead worships on Sunday and I am sure he does not want us to be stoning people to death as some of the laws prescribed.

The atonement comment is more easily puzzled out. Most of Christianity has come to accept the Penal/Substitutionary Atonement theory which grew out of the Satisfaction theory 300- to 400 years ago. No other atonement theory is acceptable to these people so if you don’t follow their atonement theory you must not believe in atonement. Thus if you don’t believe that God poured out His wrath upon Jesus at the cross you demean atonement.

I have already went over some of the reliability of Scripture on Daniel, no doubt when people hold to tradition they can’t see any possibility of anything other then earth created 6000 years ago as so famously demonstrated by Usher’s Genesis chronology. Reliability of Scripture is really based upon their presupposition that Scripture was only meant to express literal historical events no matter the problems that come along with such expectations. And finally the authority and wrath of God. Again based upon their tradition that God says obey me or I will kill you. Or the ever popular but thankfully becoming less popular, obey me or I will torture you forever and ever amen. As the bumper sticker says, “God is coming again and boy is He mad”.

So I am guilty of being a thinking Christian, not the kind of thinking that Clifford Goldstein espouses thankfully. I am still a Progressive Adventist though who knows how long that I can remain Adventist with people like Goldstein trying to run things. Maybe when those Traditional Adventists actually start discussions with a modicum of intelligence we can get some where, right now they work under the rubric:

“If you don’t agree with us as Traditional Adventists you don’t believe in Scripture, you don’t believe in atonement you don’t believe in God. “

My recent experience at my local church verifies it all too well.