Over the years, I've had some rich correspondence with many people. Some of these have been skeptics, those who resist anything that looks or sounds too orthodox. To one such friend–an agnostic type who is keenly aware of the dark side of religious conviction–I wrote the following:
I agree that religion can be a real pain in the ____, if you know what I mean! And people often try to justify all kinds of stuff.
Jesus, interestingly enough, didn't go this route, and much more often than not he attacked the religious people of his day.
Of course a lot of this also depends on how one defines religion. One definition (among others) says that it entails man’s efforts to reach God, or some such thing. In one sense, this can only lead to belief systems that are, at best, human! On the other hand, since we are all human, it is impossible to escape our humanity. Thus, in this sense, we are all inescapably religious.
A lot of this is also derived from one’s presuppositions (and we can’t escape these). Is it possible that God could have revealed himself to human beings? Is there reasonable evidence that he has? Is life interpretable in the first place, or are we all so trapped by our own biases that we cannot speak with any measure of confidence about much of anything? Many moderns (those impacted by the worldview of the enlightenment, those who think that life is easy and who believe that human reason can provide most any answer) have sometimes treated this whole issue in simplistic ways. But life isn’t always easy, and we all have biases, etc. On the other hand, postmoderns (of which I would call myself one, generally speaking) can sometimes go too far the other way. Life can still be deciphered. Many things can be known with a good sense of reasonable certainty. We know that 2 + 2 = 4 (and even if we object on some theoretical grounds, we act like this is a universal mathematical fact). We intuitively react against rape or the pillage of our property. We typically defend our loved ones. We search, in one way or another, for the transcendent. We at least act like communication is possible (This doesn't mean it is always easy; it doesn't mean that misunderstanding never occurs, for it often does. Yet, at the end of the day, we expect to be able to come to reasonable conclusions about various matters). Also, we tend to argue our points (loudly or softly), which points to the intuitive sense that there must be some universal “standard” (known or not) to which we appeal in the first place. If I say something, and you think that my views are in need of improvement, the assumption is that you might be interpreting reality better than I am, at least in your own opinion. I think this is an appeal, though most often hidden and unspoken, to something transcendent.
We can’t escape who we are, but this might simply be another way of saying that we can’t escape what God has made us to be. Also, we can’t avoid his world and the way he has constructed it. The fact that people will argue, get upset with whatever, put forward different views, cry out against things that they believe to be wrong, etc. all points to some universal factor. The fact that children are generally treated as precious, and that those who harm them are considered immoral, is an indication that there is this transcendent impulse in us all.
We can, of course, act like differences of opinion indicates that no one opinion can possibly be universally right. But this is an assumption, not an overarching and unavoidable conclusion. In fact if this conclusion is correct–if it is true that there is no universal view–then it is self-contradictory. Indeed, the only way that this relativistic view could be correct would be if one universal maxim is smuggled into the argument, namely, that there is no universal view. :-)
What is amazing to me is the fact that those who decry absolutes cannot escape them. What has happened, I think, is that many people have rightly reacted against the hubris of modern Christianity. In the process, however, it is all too tempting to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”After all, if nothing is universally true, if no one has the right to say that their view is applicable to others, if our imperfections and wrong interpretations indicate that no opinion or interpretation can ever possibly be right or better than someone else’s, then one is left in the uncomfortable place of maintaining these things and yet somehow assuming that we–those of us who are offended by the universal claims of others–must somehow have escaped the problems faced by others. After all, we believe that these universal claims and those who advocate them are wrong (or not as good as ours). But how can we maintain this opinion if our opinion itself is self-defeating?
In other words, if my opinion is that it is wrong to believe in truth, and if it rubs me the wrong way to hear those who make such claims, what has rendered me exempt from the failures I observe in others? If my opinion is that there is no universally applicable truth, either: (1) I am wrong and universal truth can be located, or (2) Truth cannot be located. If it cannot, then I have to admit that, in my opinion, there is no universal truth except one, which is that there is no universal truth. This, I maintain, leaves me with a self-contradicting opinion, an opinion that, even if it is correct, is also wrong, for it sneaks in one absolute truth. Of course if it is possible that there is indeed one absolute truth, then there might be others. Christians, among others, maintain that this inclination is a part of the divine image in human beings. Okay, I’m rambling!
When it comes to differences of opinion, there is another option. These differences might tell us at least the following:
(1) Not everything is clear. Many Christians don’t get this!
(2) We ought to be humble and careful in making universalistic claims. Again, many good people miss this point!
(3) But the impulse to make such claims might be an indication that God has in fact put it in us the desire to search for and, at some level at least, discover truth. This might take some effort, though, and a delineation ought to be made between the really important stuff and lesser things. Some confuse these two.
(4) We have been built with a sense–an imperfect sense, a handicapped sense, a humanly flawed sense–that there exists truth, the transcendent . . . the true God. Even when we deny this, we affirm it in every day life.
(5) The true God is able to get through our biases and shortcomings and enable us to grasp at least the essentials, the big-picture, of what he wants us to embrace. This is what we’re looking for, and what believers presuppose (on solid grounds, I think).
(6) We are intended to follow the truth where it leads. Again, we need humility but also a willingness to receive the truth as it comes to us.
(7) God never planned that we would know the truth flawlessly, perhaps because to do so would put us in a place where we might imagine that we no longer need him! We can know the truth sufficiently, but the imperfections of our current views aren’t intended to yield outright skepticism but rather a personal dependance on the personal being who created us. In other words we can know the truth, but we will know it best when we connect with God himself, seeking to build a relationship with him. We look for the truth and for the one who is the Truth!
A Christian worldview maintains these things, even if Christians sometimes don’t. I’m probably as turned off by the many things done “in the name of religion” as anyone could be. But I have encountered them as one of its supposed proponents. This leads to a lot of tension. Of course in the process I don’t want to dismiss the good that I find in the traditional church either. Where I recognize hubris (and I do!!!!), I want to identify it. But if I only notice the hubris of others, I might be opening myself up to a subtle type of hubris in myself (and, unfortunately, I sometimes have!!!!).
Just some random thoughts! :-)
I agree that religion can be a real pain in the ____, if you know what I mean! And people often try to justify all kinds of stuff.
Jesus, interestingly enough, didn't go this route, and much more often than not he attacked the religious people of his day.
Of course a lot of this also depends on how one defines religion. One definition (among others) says that it entails man’s efforts to reach God, or some such thing. In one sense, this can only lead to belief systems that are, at best, human! On the other hand, since we are all human, it is impossible to escape our humanity. Thus, in this sense, we are all inescapably religious.
A lot of this is also derived from one’s presuppositions (and we can’t escape these). Is it possible that God could have revealed himself to human beings? Is there reasonable evidence that he has? Is life interpretable in the first place, or are we all so trapped by our own biases that we cannot speak with any measure of confidence about much of anything? Many moderns (those impacted by the worldview of the enlightenment, those who think that life is easy and who believe that human reason can provide most any answer) have sometimes treated this whole issue in simplistic ways. But life isn’t always easy, and we all have biases, etc. On the other hand, postmoderns (of which I would call myself one, generally speaking) can sometimes go too far the other way. Life can still be deciphered. Many things can be known with a good sense of reasonable certainty. We know that 2 + 2 = 4 (and even if we object on some theoretical grounds, we act like this is a universal mathematical fact). We intuitively react against rape or the pillage of our property. We typically defend our loved ones. We search, in one way or another, for the transcendent. We at least act like communication is possible (This doesn't mean it is always easy; it doesn't mean that misunderstanding never occurs, for it often does. Yet, at the end of the day, we expect to be able to come to reasonable conclusions about various matters). Also, we tend to argue our points (loudly or softly), which points to the intuitive sense that there must be some universal “standard” (known or not) to which we appeal in the first place. If I say something, and you think that my views are in need of improvement, the assumption is that you might be interpreting reality better than I am, at least in your own opinion. I think this is an appeal, though most often hidden and unspoken, to something transcendent.
We can’t escape who we are, but this might simply be another way of saying that we can’t escape what God has made us to be. Also, we can’t avoid his world and the way he has constructed it. The fact that people will argue, get upset with whatever, put forward different views, cry out against things that they believe to be wrong, etc. all points to some universal factor. The fact that children are generally treated as precious, and that those who harm them are considered immoral, is an indication that there is this transcendent impulse in us all.
We can, of course, act like differences of opinion indicates that no one opinion can possibly be universally right. But this is an assumption, not an overarching and unavoidable conclusion. In fact if this conclusion is correct–if it is true that there is no universal view–then it is self-contradictory. Indeed, the only way that this relativistic view could be correct would be if one universal maxim is smuggled into the argument, namely, that there is no universal view. :-)
What is amazing to me is the fact that those who decry absolutes cannot escape them. What has happened, I think, is that many people have rightly reacted against the hubris of modern Christianity. In the process, however, it is all too tempting to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”After all, if nothing is universally true, if no one has the right to say that their view is applicable to others, if our imperfections and wrong interpretations indicate that no opinion or interpretation can ever possibly be right or better than someone else’s, then one is left in the uncomfortable place of maintaining these things and yet somehow assuming that we–those of us who are offended by the universal claims of others–must somehow have escaped the problems faced by others. After all, we believe that these universal claims and those who advocate them are wrong (or not as good as ours). But how can we maintain this opinion if our opinion itself is self-defeating?
In other words, if my opinion is that it is wrong to believe in truth, and if it rubs me the wrong way to hear those who make such claims, what has rendered me exempt from the failures I observe in others? If my opinion is that there is no universally applicable truth, either: (1) I am wrong and universal truth can be located, or (2) Truth cannot be located. If it cannot, then I have to admit that, in my opinion, there is no universal truth except one, which is that there is no universal truth. This, I maintain, leaves me with a self-contradicting opinion, an opinion that, even if it is correct, is also wrong, for it sneaks in one absolute truth. Of course if it is possible that there is indeed one absolute truth, then there might be others. Christians, among others, maintain that this inclination is a part of the divine image in human beings. Okay, I’m rambling!
When it comes to differences of opinion, there is another option. These differences might tell us at least the following:
(1) Not everything is clear. Many Christians don’t get this!
(2) We ought to be humble and careful in making universalistic claims. Again, many good people miss this point!
(3) But the impulse to make such claims might be an indication that God has in fact put it in us the desire to search for and, at some level at least, discover truth. This might take some effort, though, and a delineation ought to be made between the really important stuff and lesser things. Some confuse these two.
(4) We have been built with a sense–an imperfect sense, a handicapped sense, a humanly flawed sense–that there exists truth, the transcendent . . . the true God. Even when we deny this, we affirm it in every day life.
(5) The true God is able to get through our biases and shortcomings and enable us to grasp at least the essentials, the big-picture, of what he wants us to embrace. This is what we’re looking for, and what believers presuppose (on solid grounds, I think).
(6) We are intended to follow the truth where it leads. Again, we need humility but also a willingness to receive the truth as it comes to us.
(7) God never planned that we would know the truth flawlessly, perhaps because to do so would put us in a place where we might imagine that we no longer need him! We can know the truth sufficiently, but the imperfections of our current views aren’t intended to yield outright skepticism but rather a personal dependance on the personal being who created us. In other words we can know the truth, but we will know it best when we connect with God himself, seeking to build a relationship with him. We look for the truth and for the one who is the Truth!
A Christian worldview maintains these things, even if Christians sometimes don’t. I’m probably as turned off by the many things done “in the name of religion” as anyone could be. But I have encountered them as one of its supposed proponents. This leads to a lot of tension. Of course in the process I don’t want to dismiss the good that I find in the traditional church either. Where I recognize hubris (and I do!!!!), I want to identify it. But if I only notice the hubris of others, I might be opening myself up to a subtle type of hubris in myself (and, unfortunately, I sometimes have!!!!).
Just some random thoughts! :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment