Tag Archive for 'balance'

Re: Reasonable Faith

Published
by
Ken
on May 2, 2008
in atheism and christianity
. 0 Comments

A Jesus Creed post (via Through a Glass Darkly) asks an excellent question about faith vs. reason. Here are the 4+1 categories:

(1) Faith requires the renunciation of intelligence. Any elaboration here would detract from my principle point – so I will forbear.

(2) Intellectual integrity requires the renunciation of faith. This is a growing view in our world today. Secular humanism and atheism may not be in ascendancy (Alister McGrath, NT Wright, Tim Keller, and Brian McLaren all make this point in various ways) – but the view has become the de facto operating principle for many; the point of departure. More importantly, the accepted alternatives to atheism or materialism do not usually include orthodox Christian faith.

(3) By the skin of one’s teeth one can hold to both faith and integrity. But within this position there is a constant tension. We bracket off the questions and continue to function – barely. Many stories – both of those who “lost faith” and those who “retained faith” include this approach in the mix.

(4) Intellectual integrity demands faith. A modernistic “evidence that demands a verdict” approach. (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Hugh Ross, …)

I would add a fifth response to this taxonomy:

(5) Intellectual integrity is fully compatible with faith but requires honest interaction. There is no proof - some ambiguity remains. Of course honest grappling with all the questions and issues is somewhat unnerving to many. It seems inevitable that some views will be refined or even abandoned in the process and this prospect causes concern. Perhaps it is not true that everything is clear cut. Nonetheless there is a way forward. Exploring the issues does not lead inevitably to deism or liberalism or apostasy.

First, my little rant. I do not mean to offend anyone who considers herself or himself in Category 4, but I have written about Josh McDowell elsewhere on this blog and I have a difficult time admitting he has intellectual integrity. I find his arguments illogical and his conclusions difficult to embrace. He strikes me as one who has pre-determined the result and tries to make an argument which supports this conclusion even when the argument does not make sense. I find his language in some arguments almost deceitful. He holds a conservative, fundamentalist view of scripture and that is fine. But to masquerade his faulty arguments as logical proof that he is correct is damaging to the Christian faith, in my opinion.

Now that my little tirade is over …

I grew up in a Fundamentalist family and church. Back then, I would have considered myself in Category 4, right along side Josh McDowell. But it was all one-sided. I read Christian literature which bashed evolution but never anything written by anyone holding a different viewpoint. I would have considered myself as reasonably supporting my faith with scientific evidence but, in hindsight, I wasn’t. The “other side” was wrong from the get-go because it did not correspond to our interpretation of the Bible and so there was no point in getting their opinion or listening to them. They listen to someone you know is wrong?!

Senior year in high school, I served my parents’ God with divorce papers and proceeded into Category 2. All religion was poppycock and the only intelligent position was secular and atheistic.

It took me until just before my 40th birthday to realize that there was something missing. And now I’m in Category 5. And RJS describes the situation very well. “Exploring the issues does not lead inevitably to deism or liberalism or apostasy.” True! True!

However, from my parents’ point of view it does because it has lead me away from their point of view and they don’t acknowledge any other as valid. And this is part of the problem. For some people, anything that makes them question what they believe is a heresy. They hold so tightly and desperately to one interpretation and maintain that they must believe what they believe in its entirety. Any deviation in any way would make them question everything.

Yes, what is needed “honest interaction” but both sides need to be willing and able to change. One side cannot be molded to fit the rigid ideas of the other. The result of this is either atheism or fundamentalism and neither is an option for me any more. What is needed is a folding of the two together with the result that the tenets of both evolve together. Kind of like stereo vision. Each eye sees a different scene. There is some overlap but each eye sees some things the other doesn’t. But combined, the resulting image is much more powerful and holds more information than either eye’s separate image.

But I would add that both sides also must realize that it does not hold the possibility of answering all the questions. There are questions that the Bible cannot answer and there are questions that science cannot answer. If everyone would understand this and agree to it, I think a lot of problems would simply vanish.

Total understanding: an unattainable goal

Published
by
Ken
on April 8, 2008
in carl jung
. 0 Comments

An ideal understanding would ultimately result in each party’s unthinkingly going along with the other’s experience—a state of uncritical passivity coupled with the most complete subjectivity and lack of social responsibility. Understanding carried to such lengths is in any case impossible, for it would require the virtual identification of two different individuals. Sooner or later the relationship reaches a point where one partner feels he is being forced to sacrifice his own individuality so that it may be assimilated by that of the other. This inevitable consequence breaks the understanding, for understanding presupposes the integral preservation of the individuality of both partners. It is therefore advisable to carry understanding only to the point where the balance between understanding and knowledge is reached, for understanding at all costs is injurious to both partners. [C.G. Jung, The Undiscovered Self, pp. 63-64, emphasis mine]

Understanding and knowledge are, in a way, complementary. When you try to understand someone’s point of view, you begin by applying “principles based on general experience.” But, inevitably, you will find that these principles do not completely describe the particular situation at hand. There are always outside factors and other variables to consider. The more you seek an understanding the further away from principles—the foundation of objective knowledge—you must go and the more subjective the situation becomes. This subjectification is what “feels” like understanding but it is, at the same time, a disadvantage because it isolates you from the environment. This is not a desirable result because it removes knowledge from the equation altogether—the only thing that is relevant is the subjective experiences of the other. There is no longer a balance between understanding and knowledge.

So, what does it all mean? For me to really, truly understand your point of view, I will need to take on all your biases, prejudices, preconceptions, etc.—all your subjective content—which will necessarily require me to throw out all objective knowledge. In essence, I must become identified with you—assimilated by your individuality—so that I no longer exist. Only then can I have total understanding. But this is, needless to say, highly undesirable.

The rub is, as Jung points out, we have a preconception, an expectation, that we can reach an understanding without losing our individuality but this is not the case. We think that total understanding is an attainable goal and fuss and fret (or worse) when it’s not reached but we resist at each step along the way the very understanding we desire by demanding that we retain our individuality.

So, what is the answer? Ultimately, I think, the answer is to adjust our expectations and, rather than seek complete understanding, seek a balance (this “tension of the opposites” is classic Jung) between knowledge and understanding. Of course, this will hardly seem a very satisfying answer to most for there really is no resolution in this goal. No one has changed their mind; no one has been convinced they are wrong; we still have two individuals with differing opinions instead of a consensus. We still have Darwinists and Creationists. We still have Atheists and Evangelicals. We still have Capitalists and Communists. But, is it not better to have two individuals living in a balance between understanding and knowledge than to have one individual totally assimilated—totally against his will—into the other?

Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean you’re right

Published
by
Ken
on April 7, 2008
in christianity and fundamentalism
. 0 Comments

Bobby Maddex at Sign of the Times is as mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. And he does make some valid points. He and “those … who champion moral absolutes, human dignity, the traditional family, and a transcendent reality” are held to a different standard and are not allowed to take cheap shots, distribute deceitful propaganda, and are very often criticized for their stance. So, it’s natural and reasonable they they should want to fight back and do unto others as gets done unto them.

And, for the record, I don’t agree with Dawkins and the neuvo atheists. Hell, I don’t even agree with the old atheists like Bertrand Russell. I think there is something — a LOT of somethings — beyond science. But I also don’t agree with Maddex. And I’ve written a bit about Russell so now it’s Maddex’s turn.

First of all, the use of righteous anger is VERY dangerous and hubristic. James 1:20 says: “For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” To be truly righteous anger, you have to be truly right — don’t you? And it’s very easy to say and think that you are right but are you? Truly right? Calling your anger righteous just because you think God is on your side is tricky. A lot of people think God is on their side and so they all have the right to call their anger righteous.

Second is the old corollary to “they will know we are Christians by our love” which is “we will know we are Christians by their hate.” Listen. Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean God is on your side! Yes, Jesus said that those who follow him will be hated. But taking hate from the world as an “affirmation” that you are right is not the same thing. It’s kind of like: every human will die and, therefore, everything that dies is human. Wrong!

So, go ahead and parody, satirize, and poke fun at those who hold different viewpoints because they are doing it to you. I think this world would be a much, much, much better place if we could all laugh at each other and ourselves more often. And I do think that we all have the right to believe what we believe and everyone else just better “deal with it.” But, at the end of the day, we still have to live on the same tiny speck of dust as the other person. We still have to live next door to an atheist or an evangelical. We still have to elect a single president over both atheists and evangelicals. We still have to send our kids to school with atheists and evangelicals and figure out what they are going to be taught. We have to live our mundane lives between two diametrically opposed, antagonistic viewpoints and still get eight hours of sleep every night. Looking at it from this perspective, is the best answer the answer that both sides seem all too keen on? Is continued hostility and escalating aggression going to get us anywhere? Neither side is going to convince the other side it’s wrong no matter how many jib-jab-like parodies are produced. It’s not going to work, folks. So, let’s come up with an alternate solution, shall we?