Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Religious Belief - Not a Choice??

Browsing through my RSS feeds, I came across Warren Throckmorton's latest blog, called Is religious belief a choice?
In the ongoing discussion of sexual identity therapy, some have asserted that sexual orientation is not a choice but religion is (“The bottom line is your sexual orientation cannot change and your religion can,” [Wayne] Besen said.”). That struck me as a failure to understand the function and centrality of religious belief for those who are committed to it. Is religious belief a choice?

This is a provocative question. For instance, the Christian "family" groups are fighting vigorously against the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate-crime laws, arguing that gay and transgender people shouldn't get "special treatment," while at the same time they themselves get special treatment, special protection for their religious beliefs. We know that sexual orientation and gender identity are inborn, yet there does not seem to be any rational way of looking at human behavior that concludes that religion is -- if it were, adopted children would grow up to adopt the beliefs of their biological parents, not their adoptive ones. The Lamarckian conclusion seems absurd.

Throckmorton quotes another blogger, who has questioned whether faith is a choice, and says:
I know there are inconsistencies in my beliefs but I have tried on many other worldviews and have found them full of cognitive inconsistencies as well. It does not seem like my beliefs are chosen as if from a menu. To me, it seems like our brains are wired to believe but not wired well enough to find a system without holes.

Ah, so yes, it does appear to be universal that people seek an explanation for meaning, and end up believing in a higher power; this happens everywhere in the world, in some form or another. It may be explained as a way to escape the ungrounded tautology of meaning, but regardless, it is a universal human expression.

Now I think of those guys that shouted down the Hindu priest in Congress the other day. If Throckmorton's interpretation is right, then those Christians should have realized that the Hindu seeks spiritual fulfillment just like the Christian does, and the Muslim does, and the devout pagan. Were they born to be Christians? Was the Hindu born to be Hindu? There are norms, social pressures, that compel us to choose one way or the other, but if you think people have free will then you can't see that as a contradiction to choice: we can always violate our group's norms, if we will it.

Yet there is very strong resistance among fundamentalists of all faiths to the idea that there is a single supreme deity worshiped in diverse ways by diverse groups. They insist that their god is the one and only, and He-She-It has a special interest in them, specifically.

Let's say maybe people have two antithetical inherent tendencies. First, there is a need to complete the arc of meaning by identifying the source of beauty, intelligence, goodness, and love. Many people smarter than me have concluded that a god has created the world and imbued it with special qualities, and that's why we are able to perceive and appreciate the inner glow of ourselves and the radiant universe around us, that's the source of love and our knowledge of right and wrong. Second, people have an inherent need to feel superior to other people, a tendency to elevate their ingroup above other outgroups.

The first of these tendencies leads us to faith. We suffer a spiritual thirst, and we need to drink -- I am willing to agree that this is not a choice but part of the human condition. But if it was just that, then there would be no problem understanding that the particular details of other people's explanations of spiritual dimensions might differ from ours. The second tendency leads us to pettiness, and leads people to violate the obvious command of true faith, the command of love. The blending of these two tendencies leads people to the conclusion that their god is special and favors their own ingroup, and leads them to conclude that outgroup members are ugly and depraved and hated in heaven.

I'll agree with Throckmorton halfway. It may be that people have a need to believe. But people also have a need to aggrandize their own mythology and themselves, in comparison to others' mythologies and selves. The result is so counter-spiritual that it is laughable, except that it is so tragic: war between people on the basis of religion, hatred in the name of God.

As for Throckmorton's concern about Besen's statement, that sexual orientation is inborn but religion isn't, the desire to believe may be inborn, but no one is born with Christian or Muslim or Hindu or pagan faith. At the same time, beyond the inborn need to love and be loved, there is an innate tendency to seek out a certain kind of mate; some are born to love a man and some born to love a woman, the evidence is beyond reproach, the only challenge to the conclusion comes from serious wishful thinking. The comparison between religion and sexual orientation is a false dichotomy, the two are not comparable.

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim -- reread my post. I did not say specific religious beliefs were inborn. The point of my post is that religious beliefs take on an enduring quality for many people that are not as mutable as they may seem in contrast to an inborn trait.

Learned does not necessarily easily changed nor does inborn necessarily mean irresistable. Addressing conflict over sexual attractions by reducing religion to choice and sexual attraction to a fixed inborn trait, over simplifies both aspects of personality and is of little help to people who experience these conflicts.

Doing so may make things a little neater for those who do not like conservative religions but I say again, it doesn't help those much who are in the thick of the situation.

July 31, 2007 2:10 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Warren,

No one here has ever said that "inborn means irresistible." One can resist one's innate heterosexual desire as well as innate homosexual desire. People do so all the time -- some situationally, others permanently.

To follow up on Jim, we all have an inborn sexual orientation, and let's accept that we all have an inborn need to believe in a higher power. There is no debate on that premise. The problem comes when the actual form of that sexual orientation or religious belief becomes manifest, with members of one group trying to convert members of another, be it about sexual orientation or religion.

I personally don't believe proselytization of either form is acceptable decent human behavior.

July 31, 2007 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Christian "family" groups are fighting vigorously against the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate-crime laws, arguing that gay and transgender people shouldn't get "special treatment," while at the same time they themselves get special treatment, special protection for their religious beliefs."

I don't know of any Christian groups of any kind that want the extra protection of hate crimes laws. The existing laws against assault and vandalism are sufficient.

Personally, I really don't want the government enforcing religious discrimination statutes either but an argument can be made that such protection is necessary, not because religion is innate, but because the establishment clause of the Constitution singles out religion for some special exclusions.

July 31, 2007 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We know that sexual orientation and gender identity are inborn"

No we don't. The factors that affect the development of these desires may be encountered after birth.

July 31, 2007 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"yet there does not seem to be any rational way of looking at human behavior that concludes that religion is -- if it were, adopted children would grow up to adopt the beliefs of their biological parents, not their adoptive ones"

Religion is indeed inborn in the same sense that sexuality is. Every human being is created with a destiny to develop a spiritual hunger. How one satisfies that hunger is a matter of choice. Similarly, every human being is created with a destiny to develop sexual desire. How one quenches that desire is a matter of choice, influenced by external factors. Absent social norms, gender preference is simply an affectation.

July 31, 2007 4:50 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Warren, I re-read yours, and I re-read mine. The difference might be that you're a clinical psychologist and I'm a social psychologist, and we focus on a different level of the system. People don't pick a religion "from a menu," as you say, they pick the religion of their community, the religion of their parents, with extremely high probability.

My comment about the Hindu and the Christian not being born that way was not meant to summarize your statements. In re-reading your post, though, I see there is a tendency to think that your group's religious beliefs "make sense" more than some others. That's just the way the Aztec would have felt, that it "made sense" to rip people's hearts out and throw them down the sides of the Pyramid of the Sun to bring good fortune. Yeah, there are holes in it, but it made sense, to those people, in the same way that your ingroup's beliefs make sense to you. Your defense that you didn't mean a particular religion is inborn doesn't acknowledge that you seem to think that the tendency to believe, which we are all accepting for the moment, is really the tendency to believe what a Christian believes -- but this assumption does show through your words.

JimK

July 31, 2007 7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say I necessarily had a choice in what to believe, as I was brought up a Christian without realising it. At the time I wasn't mentally mature enough to seriously comprehend matters of spirituality and belief, and blindly attending Sunday school in conjunction with my academic studies every week meant I considered myself a Christian fairly early in my life.

I was exposed to Christianity long before I learned of the other major world religions, and when I finally did learn of them, I was too ingrained with Christian teachings to even imagine changing a fundamental foundation that was built and gradually grew from when I was born. In that sense I didn't have a choice, because I simply couldn't choose to disbelieve.

Nevertheless, as I grew older my beliefs did change as I was gradually exposed to more of the general complexities of life. Perhaps if I chose to dig deeper into the various doctrines and ventured into some soul searching, my beliefs would change after some reflective re-evaluation.

Sexuality? Though it may share certain similarities to experiencing belief, I can't say I was taught about learning to like the opposite sex. It's far easier for me to pinpoint what caused my beliefs to develop and change; how sexuality develops is still a murky sea of grey.

July 31, 2007 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was also raised as a Christian but once I learned about all of the harm that has been done to human beings in the name of Jesus over the ages, I easily and completely turned away from Christianity. I have never felt any need to turn back or toward any other religion since then. I live my life with gusto, do my best to make this world a better place, and expect to stay dead once I die.

On the other hand, from my earliest memories as a child, I was always attracted to members of the opposite sex. That attraction has never changed and after several decades of sexual activity including one long-term marriage with children, I don't expect it ever will.

August 01, 2007 11:27 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

I'll point out, Jor-el, that calling yourself that doesn't make you any less anonymous, it simply groups together your anonymous comments. Most people on this blog identify who they are in life, because they stand by what they say. Do you stand by what you say?

rrjr

August 01, 2007 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert

I just made up the name because one of you requested I do so.

As far as I'm concerned, anonymity is the draw of the internet blog phenomena. You can float ideas and see what others have to say and not worry about it.

Again, if you don't like it, speak to the administrator. These blog can be set up to not allow anonymous comments.

Have you read about the Communist government's recent action outlawing anonymous bloggers in China? They want to know who people are so they can hold them accountable.

Sounds like you.

August 01, 2007 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holding people accountable! Those &($%@^ pinko commies! What will they think of next?

Interesting digression ahead

I've also proposed a 10-point Accountability Plan for American Business, designed to provide better information to shareholders, set clear responsibility for corporate officers, and develop a stronger, more independent auditing system.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/07/20020709-4.html

Corruption is a problem at both the national and local levels of the Iraqi government. We will not tolerate fraud -- so our embassy in Baghdad is helping to demand transparency and accountability for the money being invested in reconstruction.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207-1.html

I think this is an important part of making sure we have accountability here in Washington, D.C.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html

..in my state we said we want to know whether or not a child can read or write early, before that child gets moved through the system. And so I insisted upon accountability.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070302-8.html

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12450-2005Jan15.html

The commutation — which is not a pardon and does not erase Libby's conviction — is a reminder that Bush and his crew do not believe in accountability ...Libby had become a symbol of the Bush White House's problem with the truth.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/03/opinion/main3011732.shtml

August 01, 2007 4:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Mr. Throckmorton has been wailing to the APA that they should consider a person's religiosity as having the same importance as their sexual orientation when the APA updates its stand on "conversion therapy".

Wayne Besen said “The bottom line is your sexual orientation cannot change and your religion can” and Throckmorton responded "That struck me as a failure to understand the function and centrality of religious belief for those who are committed to it.".

That's incredibly hypocritical of him to suggest an equivalence to the two given that he's tried and failed to change people's sexuality but he most certainly hasn't put in the same effort to changing gay's religion. Throckmorton doesn't have a leg to stand on until he puts the same effort into relieving people's conflict by trying to change their religious beliefs as he's put into trying to change their sexual orientation. Fact is he doesn't want to know if he can help gays find relief from their self-destructive religious beliefs, he just wants the APA to blindly assume that such beliefs are as rigid as sexuality. Its almost exclusively deeply religious gays who persue the "exgay" delusion. Changing sexual orientation has been shown to be almost always impossible, if he was an ethical therapist he'd pursue helping such people rid themselves of harmful religious beliefs with the same zeal.


Jorel said "I don't know of any Christian groups of any kind that want the extra protection of hate crimes laws. The existing laws against assault and vandalism are sufficient.".

Oh, get off it. Groups like Exodus, PFOX, and "Focus on the Family" are strictly opposing the addition of gays to existing hate crimes laws, they are most certainly not advocating the total abolition of such laws and the special protection it provides them.


Jorel said "Religion is indeed inborn in the same sense that sexuality is.".

That's hilarious, just one post earlier you were insisting sexuality isn't inborn.

Jorel said "Every human being is created with a destiny to develop a spiritual hunger. How one satisfies that hunger is a matter of choice.".

Now who's making statements that aren't supported by science, or common sense for that matter?! Humans have a desire to understand their world and the only reason most people believe in god(s) is that its a simple, albeit faulty, explanation for how things came to be. No one has an innate desire to believe in god(s), they have an innate desire for an explanation as to how things work and in a primitive world religion suffices for this.

Jorel said "Similarly, every human being is created with a destiny to develop sexual desire. How one quenches that desire is a matter of choice, influenced by external factors.".

Ridiculous. Everyone is created with a destiny to desire a particular gender (or both). If this weren't the case the ratio of gays to straights would be highly variable - it isn't. The vast majority of people are born to be straight so that species can be continued. If who we desire were a matter of choice they wouldn't be hanging gays in Iran, everyone would choose to be straight as it would be the simple matter Jorel laughingly suggests. The fact that gays have alwayes existed despite the harshest attempts to force people not to be that way shows that for some people they cannot help but be that way.

Jorel said "Absent social norms, gender preference is simply an affectation."

Again, pure nonsense. Absent "social norms" half of people would be gay and half of people would be straight given that sexuality would be a simple matter of random chance - we've never seen this in any society, its always been the same 5 or 10 percent that's been gay regardless of how much gayness has been accepted or discouraged.

What are you trying to tell us Jorel, are you seriously going to tell us it would be just as easy for you to be gay as straight? Are you going to tell us with a straight face that at the drop of a hat you can eliminate your attraction for women and be exclusively attracted to men? Get real, you don't even believe your own BS.

August 01, 2007 7:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jorel said "As far as I'm concerned, anonymity is the draw of the internet blog phenomena. You can float ideas and see what others have to say and not worry about it.".

If I were so ashamed of my ideas as to be worried about expressing them I wouldn't. The fact that you're putting out ideas that are so half-baked that you don't want to take ownership of them explains a lot.

August 01, 2007 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Holding people accountable! Those &($%@^ pinko commies! What will they think of next?"

I'm sorry if I confused you with euphemism. By "accountable" I meant subject to violent physical retribution for expresing one's point of view.

Maybe you should travel to China and try some free speech in the square. Start off by saying Taiwan is the "real" China.

August 01, 2007 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By "accountable" I meant subject to violent physical retribution for expresing one's point of view.

I guess being "subject to" having your cover blown because your husband expressed his point of view is less of a problem for you?

August 02, 2007 11:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home