Self-Deception and Belief Formation

An interesting post on Self-Deception and the Problem with Religious Belief Formation at "Philosophy Talk". In a sense it's a rather odd argument; the post, on close analysis, doesn't tell us anything about religious belief formation in general, but only provides a self-critique of the author's own earlier not-particularly-rational response to liturgical formation. I'm glad such a self-critique is out there, though, because these irrational responses do arise when (for instance) people take lines out of the liturgy out of context, or take no trouble to make an inquiry into their meaning or the reasoning behind them. In the particular case noted, it's clear that interpreting the line as a 'vilification of unbelievers' is a very strained interpretation that won't survive much critical examination. For one, thing the line isn't about unbelievers in general; it's about those who partake in communion without believing in the doctrinal principles that ground the practice. Further, the line doesn't stand on its own; in fact, it's version of a verse from 1 Corinthians 11, as a little research would show anyone:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

And, recognizing this context, we can see that the author's contention that 'judgment' here implies damnation is simply absurd. Since the author grew up in a Reformed church, a little look at Calvin is perhaps worth our time:

If you would wish to use aright the benefit afforded by Christ, bring faith and repentance. As to these two things, therefore, the trial [i.e., the self-examination] must be made, if you would come duly prepared. Under repentance I include love; for the man who has learned to renounce himself, that he may give himself up wholly to Christ and his service, will also, without doubt, carefully maintain that unity which Christ has enjoined. At the same time, it is not a perfect faith or repentance that is required, as some, by urging beyond due bounds, a perfection that can nowhere be found, would shut out for ever from the Supper every individual of mankind. If, however, thou aspirest after the righteousness of God with the earnest desire of thy mind, and, trembled under a view of thy misery, dost wholly lean upon Christ's grace, and rest upon it, know that thou art a worthy guest to approach the table -- worthy I mean in this respect, that the Lord does not exclude thee, though in another point of view there is something in thee that is not as it ought to be. For faith, when it is but begun, makes those worthy who were unworthy.

Throughout, here and elsewhere in discussing this passage, Calvin puts the emphasis on self-examination: Christians are not to partake of the bread and the cup without first examining themselves to determine whether they believe, as their fellow Christians do, in the body of Christ, and repent of any sins they may have. And Calvin is very clear about the reason for this: those who don't are making themselves into hypocrites, inclining themselves to treat important things (such as the unity of the Church expressed in communion) as unimportant, and inculcating self-deception. And Calvin's view, allowing for different emphases, is very common.

I think in some places the author is either being a bit disingenuous or hasn't thought through properly the way pedagogy actually works. Nobody criticizes medical students, for instance, on the grounds that making up little rhymes and rote memorization is a bad method of 'belief formation' about anatomy; the point of such things is not to induce belief but to aid memory, clarify details, and make belief practically useful. So with much song and chant and the whole schebang of liturgy and devotional life. And the author clearly never took any trouble to make a serious inquiry into the Reformed doctrine of faith, since his account of what was meant by faith is not even recognizably Reformed. So the lesson here to be learned is that it is not enough simply to listen; one must take this as a beginning and then take the trouble to inquire and learn. If we don't take this initiative, the author is quite right that our 'belief formation' will be irrational. This will be true for any field of thought, religious or not.