I’ve been sitting with this quote for over a year now – trying to figure out the best time to blog about it. I first heard Bob Dykstra, professor of Pastoral Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary (and the best professor at Princeton Seminary, in my opinion) mention this in one of his lectures. I think it’s a very interesting take on the process by which we change our mind on certain issues – and what happens to us and to our worldview when thoughts and beliefs change. Of course, I have issues related to this post in mind with this quote, but I think it’s something that could be applied to many different situations in which it becomes necessary for some to change their minds:
“The process here is always the same. The individual has a stock of old opinions already, but he meets a new experience that puts them to a strain. Somebody contradicts them; or in a reflective moment he discovers that they contradict each other; or he hears of facts with which they are incompatible; or desires arise in him which they cease to satisfy. The result is an inward trouble to which his mind till then had been a stranger, and from which he seeks to escape by modifying his previous mass of opinions. He saves as much of it as he can, for in this matter of belief we are all extreme conservatives. So he tries to change first this opinion, and then that (for they resist change very variously), until at last some new idea comes up which he can graft upon the ancient stock with a minimum of disturbance of the latter….
“[Even] the most violent revolutions in an individual’s beliefs leave most of his old order standing. Time and space, cause and effect, nature and history, and one’s own biography remain untouched. New truth is always a go-between, a smoother-over of transitions. It marries old opinion to new fact so as ever to show a minimum of jolt, a maximum of continuity…. A new opinion counts as ‘true’ just in proportion as it gratifies the individual’s desire to assimilate the novel in his experience to his beliefs in stock…. [Even the most ancient truths were themselves once plastic.] They also were called true from human reasons. They also mediated between still earlier truths and what in those days were novel observations. Purely objective truth, truth in whose establishment the function of giving human satisfaction in marrying previous parts of experience with newer parts played no role whatsoever, is nowhere to be found.”
From William James’s Pragmatism (1907), excerpts
What would it mean for us to view our beliefs and truths as more “plastic”?
Related posts:
- The Pig of Truth: Experiencing God’s Presence
- A Beautiful Idea: Artists Changing the World
- Introducing the Credo Blog Series
- Group Discernment: Watch the Spirit Show Up!
Share This Post:
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
That’s a particularly meaty quote, which spins interestingly against some stuff I’ve blogged recently.
James seems to be exploring the cognitive dissonance that occurs when a strongly held belief is challenged. What is interesting is that he doesn’t touch on one of the primary ways in which human beings respond to “new truth.” Rather than integrate that new information into their understanding of being, they resist it. They fight that truth, denying that it has any validity, and they create deeper and more convoluted conceptual defenses against it. That’s the whole point of fundamentalist apologetics, and the whole reason that this odd place exists: http://www.creationmuseum.org/
While I appreciate what James is saying, I have trouble with it on one level. That last sentence in his quote is…well…tenuous from a theological perspective. Recognizing the contingence of our grasp on truth is necessary, but faith cannot be faith without a truth that transcends us. Our truth *has* to be plastic, but towards the end of constantly striving to understand God’s intent for us.
What would it mean for us to view our beliefs and truths as more “plastic”?
1 Timothy 3:1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self… lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.
You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
I don’t think I need to expound upon this but it is clear that we are to avoid people who are always learning, always changing their mind, yet never able to arrive at the truth. In contrast, we are not to have “plastic” beliefs, but rather, we are to hold fast to what we have firmly believed and that belief is to be rooted in God-breathed Scripture.
@Brandon, if it is so clear that you are to “avoid people who are always learning, always changing their mind, yet never able to arrive at the church” can I ask why you keep coming back here to pomomusings? You’ve already stated that you hope God will have mercy on my soul for what I’ve done with God’s words. You’ve questioned my faith and call to ministry. If finding rock solid, concrete, firmly rooted conversations, discussions, and ideas is what you want – you will not find it here.
But if you’re open to actual dialogue, conversation, humility, and openness – then by all means, comment away.
For James, this is rooted in “what works”. It is not relativism (as many would accuse Rorty of later on who is a pragmatist before a postmodernist) but the ability to balance even rational assumptions with empirical evidence that seems contradictory. Calvin Schrag’s book The Resources of Rationality describes this as a “critical realism”.
The way that James might answer this question is that all beliefs are by nature plastic. Beliefs change when experiences occur that are counter-factual to those beliefs. the process of negotiation that ensues will either ignore that evidence and thus place those beliefs in higher tension with that evidence from experience (e.g. one becomes more sectarian) or one reconciles those beliefs in an effort to achieve some degree of equilibrium with experience. Put in Piaget’s terms, this is simply the process of how human cognition develops.
Now for James, what works here is to establish this equilibrium by letting intelligence balance between empirical evidence and conviction. To him this is the only thing that can actually work for individuals to be free and to establish a good society as well (in keeping with Dewey for instance). So he might agree with Pope John Paul II that evolution is true, and the revelation that God created the cosmos is also true. Truth cannot contradict truth and so, there must be a rational connection between the two. the same with homosexuality. If a same gender couple can flourish and receive Christ’s calling in their lives, then this must equilibrate held assumptions about homosexuality as interpreted in scripture. But James would also go further to say that if a belief simply does not work to establish a good society, the only rational thing to do is reject it.
There’s gotta be a limit to the plasticity of beliefs and truths.
If I put my hand on an electric stove burner, it’s gonna burn. That’s the way it is. I may theorize that because I feel a sensation similar to very cold temperatures when I put my hand in hot water, that the burner is actually very cold. I’m still gonna get blisters and smell burning flesh if I put my hand on a hot electric stove burner.
The key is use of intellect to evaluate the new data. If we simply exclude new data that do not fit our worldview, we do not have plastic beliefs. If anything, we have iron beliefs – those which we refuse to modify. To some extent this is happening on both sides of the global warming debate.
We need to be willing to consider our beliefs in light of new information/questions/desires. And we need to use our intellect, relationship with God, preferences, etc in order to incorporate the new information OR to refute it. And that’s a personal choice.
The problem that I have is that today we have two groups. One group (the modernist group) feels that there is a single Truth that is not plastic. This Truth is also assumed to be known by either the speaker or someone who the speakers appeals to as an authority. Anything that contradicts this Truth is false, and in some cases the person questioning is derided.
The other group is postmoderns. They believe that some truth is plastic, and that we must constantly reevaluate our beliefs in light of new information.
Our problems today in the church come from the clash between these worldviews. Most postmodernists can accept the Modernist as a special case of themselves – one who rejects most new information. Some Postmodernists are so tied to new ideas that they become the anti-Modernist – refusing to accept old ideas and being just as non-plastic. The problem is that the Modernist cannot by definition accept a challenge to Truth, which the Postmodernist presents. This is what causes the wars over defining people in and defining people out.
Not everything’s about you Adam.
Brandon,
Au contraire, on Adam’s blog everything is about him. And on you your blog everything is about you, and on my blog everything is about me. Isn’t that the very nature of blogs? This is not journalism it’s journaling.
I’m sorry Nancy, I thought soli deo gloria still held some sway, thanks for correcting me.
@ Brandon -
Mt. 7.1-8: “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye. “Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.
Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.
To suggest that we ought not search for the truth continually (or associate with those who do) is intellectually irresponsible at best and morally perverse at worst. I happen to agree with you that Scripture should be our ultimate source of truth and that we should cling to the truth of the Gospel above all else (for the particular revelation of Jesus and the Christian social-ethic is unknowable by natural reason). However, by suggesting that Christians should avoid those who switch their opinions on some things, you seem to assume that you know the truth about all things. Adam was right on by reminding you (and us all) that theological conversations must be conducted with humility. If we can’t have theological conversations about the tough issues within the Church, where are we as Christians supposed to do so?
@Justin
Thank you for your appeal to Scripture. I appreciate it. However, I cannot discern your intention in quoting the passage that you did because I fail to see it’s relevance. Can you please elaborate or unpack it for me?
Just as context is a key part of biblical exegesis, so it is with understanding anything else that is written, including my comments. I did not suggest that the Christian should not continually seek the truth. Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. would have been a more appropriate passage to make your point.
Adam did not post a quote from a Christian urging Christians to renew their mind by submitting to God’s Word. He posted a quote from an anti-Christian philosopher who believes that we should hold nothing as absolutely true (especially Scripture), but rather, truth should be based upon our experience and what works best for us. He then called for our beliefs (which should be rooted in God’s Word) to be “plastic” ever changing as our experiences change. This is completely antithetical to what Christians are to do:
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
Furthermore, Adam wrote this quote in relation to his previous post regarding homosexuality and the bible. His experience tells him homosexuality seems fun, so we should ignore the bible or figure out a way to make the bible fit with his experience.
The quote from 2 Tim 3 (sorry I misquoted it as 1 Tim) is a warning against false teachers. One of the manifestations of these particular false teachers is that their false view of reality commits them to be ever learning but never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. This specifically is condemned. No Christian should believe they are never able to arrive at the truth (which is a Rock, not plastic). (Clearly we will never arrive at complete, exhaustive truth here on earth, but that is beside the point).
Finally, in regards to humility I point you to comments I made on Adam’s homosexuality and the bible post. It is not humble to claim we cannot know truth and to arrogantly elevate your own experience above God’s Word. It is not humble to stand idly by and not call out false teachers like Adam. If you believe it is wrong for me to do so, then you must also believe Jesus and the Apostles were in error, for they spent much time weeding out the wolves.
@ Brandon –
My reason for quoting Jesus in Matthew 7 was two-fold. Within those passages Jesus decries hypocrisy, and hypocrisy rooted in judging one’s neighbor without first removing the log out of one’s own eye. Further, the quote ends with the admonishment towards searching in order to find, seeking in order lay hold of. By being so highly critical of Adam’s style of dialogue (often rooted in provocative claims which by their very nature produce good dialogue) you come off as all-knowing – as if you have arrived at all truth by simply understanding the message of the Bible. It is the assumption that is evident in your posts that you seem to be absolutely sure about all of your positions as if all of your positions are clearly spelled out in Scripture. I want to suggest that if you believe all of your opinions are correct, then you are lacking humility. I agree that there is absolute moral truths, but I may disagree on how clearly those can be perceived within ‘this current world’. That you pointed me towards Romans 12.2 is interesting, for I do believe that our ethic is to be shaped be the Kingdom that Jesus established upon earth as it is in heaven (and thus we are not to be conformed to the image of This Age, but rather the age that we are anticipating that will be fully manifest in the culmination of the Kingdom). But what I find difficult – not simple – is the dual pull of this kingdom-ethic towards loving my neighbors as myself unconditionally and the eschatological kingdom-symbolism of Christian marriage. Both are convicting, and it is not easy to navigate the waters. All this is said in order to hopefully encourage you to admit that your position(s) or biblical interpretations may occasionally be wrong. Sometimes in our search for truth it is most important to recognize that we can learn from our neighbors who may be as incorrect as ourselves, but we can only see falsehood and our search for truth satisfied when the log has been removed from our own eyes.
@Justin,
Thanks for explaining a little more. I do not believe all of my opinions are correct. I do believe the opinions that I have mentioned on this blog are correct. It is not lacking humility to believe that I at least know some truth with certainty. (and, btw, my criticism has nothing to do with Adam’s “style of dialogue.” It has to do with his beliefs).
The extent to which they are revealed to us by God in His Word is the extent to which we can know absolute truth within ‘this current world.’ To deny that is to deny that God has revealed truth to us.
I fully admit I may be wrong, but show me through Scripture. Don’t just write me off ipso facto simply because I claim to know the truth. Do the hard work of exegesis and rely upon the truth of God’s Word (rather than your own opinion or personal experience) to show me how I am wrong.
Thanks for your advice, but let me ask you this: do you believe that there are false teachers, wolves, in the church today? If so, who are they and how can we recognize them?
Nice quote. Glad to find James on here as he’s had a sizable influence on me.
For clarity sake, I think it is important to distinguish between changing one’s mind and the category we are speaking of.
Fields such as history and science demand that one remain open to changing their minds, but others do not. In fact while interpersonal relationships are dynamic and always changing, they do so in a confine of us covenanting that on some things we will not change our minds; fidelity, trust, love, care. I have surrendered (and happily so) the freedom to change my mind about if I will for the rest of my life love my wife and be faithful to her, my mind is made up, period. Now I know on a blog called “pomomusings” that may sound absolute or stifling but it is actually by refusing to change my mind that I gain a greater freedom and exploration than I would ever know; that being intimacy.
I draw out this example because the parallals are obvious to anyone who is concerned about having a relationship with God and not just batting around theological ideas and questions. If we are called to covenant with God that means there are certain things we do not change our mind about, because God is not an idea but a person, to which we have relationship with.
So while we may change our beliefs in worldview categories such as politics, economics, and science I would be hesitant to think this is as broad as some might assume.