Punctum Saliens

I’ve finally found a quote from C.G. Jung that backs up what I’ve been saying for a while now [e.g. here, here, and here]:

The Churches stand for traditional and collective convictions which in the case of many of their adherents are no longer based on their own inner experience but on unreflecting belief, which is notoriously apt to disappear as soon as one begins thinking about it. The content of belief then comes into collision with knowledge, and it often turns out that the irrationality of the former is no match for the ratiocinations of the latter. Belief is no adequate substitute for inner experience, and where this is absent even a strong faith which came miraculously as a gift of grace may depart equally miraculously. People call faith the true religious experience, but they do not  stop to consider that actually it is a secondary phenomenon arising form the fact that something happened to us in the first place which instilled pistis into us — that is, trust and loyalty. This experience has a definite content that can be interpreted in terms of one or other of the denominational creeds. But the more this is so, the more the possibilities of these conflicts with knowledge mount up, which in themselves are quite pointless. That is to say, the standpoint of the creeds is archaic; they are full of impressive mythological symbolism which, if taken literally, comes into insufferable conflict with knowledge. But if, for instance, the statement that Christ rose form the dead is to be understood not literally but symbolically, then it is capable of various interpretations that do not conflict with knowledge and do not impair the meaning of the statement. The objection that understanding it symbolically puts an end to the Christian’s hope of immortality is invalid, because long before the coming of Christianity mankind believed in a life after death and therefore had no need of the Easter event as a guarantee of immortality. The danger that a mythology understood too literally, and as taught by the Church, will suddenly be repudiated lock, stock and barrel is today greater than ever. Is it not time that the Christian mythology, instead of being wiped out, was understood symbolically for once? [Jung, C.G., "The Undiscovered Self," CW vol. 10, par. 521.]

caveat lector: I am an engineering Ph.D. with a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (complete with a Dictionary of the Greek New Testament) and Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon and I’m not afraid to use them! So, therefore, I would appreciate input on meaning and nuance from anyone who has actually studied ancient Greek.

I want to bring in a later definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1 which reads, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” This definition seems at odds with Jesus’ definition because it emphasizes the future and the unseen whereas the people Jesus credits with faith have faith in something happening right now because of what they’ve seen Jesus do in the past. On the one hand, this seems perfectly reasonable because we have not witnessed Jesus perform a miracle and so our faith must be based on things unseen. But on the other hand, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus defines faith relative to things in nature—the birds and the flowers—which we do have the ability to witness even today.

The first half of the definition in Hebrews 11:1 is rather pedestrian and obvious. Faith—πίστις (pistis)—has the meaning of persuasion or conviction and derives from πείθω (pĕithō) which means to convince by argument. The Greek word, ἐλπιζω (ĕlpizō) translated as hoped also means expected. Indeed, in English, hope implies “reasonable confidence” that the desired outcome will occur. So we have faith as the assurance—ὑπόστᾰσις (hupŏstasis) also means the support, foundation, or ground of hope—of what we expect to happen. This is very nearly a tautology: we have been convinced of something and this conviction is the basis, the ground of our expectation, that that thing of which we are convinced will come to pass. If we are convinced of something, of course we expect it!

The second half of the definition is more interesting although just as unsatisfying. The Greek word for conviction—ἕλεγχος (ĕlĕgehŏs)—has the connotations of reproof, a cross-examining, testing for the purposes of disproof or refuting. The Greek word for seen—βλἐπω (blĕpō)—implies “simply voluntary observation.” So, our faith allows us to examine, to test, with the end goal of being able to disprove things that we have chosen to not observe. But if we are persuaded of something we do not need to observe it. I am convinced that electrons exist so it does not matter that I have never seen an electron. The real, unanswered question is, “in what does our faith, our persuasion, consist”? This definition in Hebrews does not answer that question. But, taking Jesus’ definition of faith, we are persuaded by seeing what God has done. There is no “leap of faith” involved. Our faith is based on past experience.

[ Parts I, II, III, IV, V ]

If consciousness is created by embracing the tension of the opposites — paradox — and faith is also the tension of the opposites, what is the connection with the superposition of states in quantum physics? Take the most common example of the electron existing as a particle and a wave. These two states seem mutually exclusive, paradoxical, yet the electron exists as both/and in a superposition. It is only with observation that the electron collapses to one of the two states — that is, “becomes” either a particle or a wave. Faith and creating consciousness can be described as the superposition state where multiple possibilities exist; attachment and identification is then the collapsed state where only one possibility exists.

Perhaps the “real” world is the world of superposition and the “concrete” world is the world of collapsed states as we experience it with our senses. Perhaps the goal is to not be attached to the single, collapsed state but embrace the paradox of the superposition. I’ll have to ponder this more but I think there is something there.

Have you thought about this? Can you help me find what I think is out there waiting to be found?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler?

There is still something, nevertheless, that strikes me as very odd about these statements by Jesus and that is the purely gratuitous nature of the exemplary acts he cites as the result of having faith. Of what conceivable purpose could moving a mountain into the sea be? And what kind of God tempts man with such power when the meek are to inherit the earth? These statements are diametrically opposed to Jesus’ main message of humility and servitude and they make me wonder why he made them at all. Would it not be just as powerful yet more in agreement with Jesus’ teachings and life to give examples of faith like bringing rain during a drought or causing crops to grow in infertile soil?

But, Jesus used the words he used. There is no profit in second guessing his motives; only in understanding him do we gain anything. The simplest way to understand is to take him literally and then qualify his statements to make them comfortable. To this end, some will, as The Ryrie Study Bible does and with what seems to be not a little unease in attributing such power to mere mortals, put limits on the conditions under which Jesus’ statements are valid. Others will take Jesus’ words just as literally but then proceed to point out the obvious absence of literal mountain-moving men and consign Jesus’ statements to the dung heap along with all notions of a faith worth more than a single mustard seed.

Indeed, we have no record of Jesus, his disciples, nor the apostles moving either mountains or trees into the sea and there is no other evidence that he was speaking literally. So what would it mean to take his words metaphorically or symbolically? A mountain and the sea can be viewed as opposites on several different levels. Aside from the physical opposites of solid/liquid and high/low, mountains symbolize constancy, stillness, firmness while the waters of the sea are chaotic, continually in flux. Mountains represent the state of full consciousness, full differentiation, the place of renunciation and highest aspirations; water symbolizes the undifferentiated, our material existence. Casting a mountain into the sea can then be viewed as merging contrary or contradictory viewpoints and no longer seeing them as separate entities; it is to transcend dualistic thinking by not seeing a mountain here and a separate sea over there but both, together. It is to not apprehend either/or but both/and.

But, of what use is the ability to transcend dualism? How does it help me in my everyday life? Lisa Alther, American author and novelist, writes: “I happen to feel that the degree of a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting attitudes she can bring to bear on the same topic.” This goes right to the heart of the matter. Dualism says, “This is good and that is evil or that is good and this evil.” But when you cast the mountain into the sea, this ceases to be either good or evil and becomes both good and evil. It is seeing both sides of the coin at the same time, it is the middle way, it is embracing paradox. We think of opposites as mutually exclusive. A thing cannot possibly have two opposite characteristics at the same time; it is either right or wrong, good or evil, left or right, black or white. But the world of paradox is not a world of white or black but a world of grayscale.

Holding all sides of an argument in the mind instead of identifying with one to the exclusion of all the others inevitably produces a tension—the tension of the opposites, as Carl Jung phrased it. Edward F. Edinger discusses this tension of the opposites and describes its effect as consciousness-creating:

[I]n the process of creating consciousness we shall at first be thrown back and forth between opposing moods and attitudes. Each time the ego identifies with one side of a pair of opposites the unconscious will confront one with its contrary. Gradually, the individual becomes able to experience opposite viewpoints simultaneously. With this capacity, alchemically speaking, the Philosophers’ Stone is born, i.e., consciousness is created.

This description of the initial stages of dealing with paradox cannot but bring to mind a similar passage in Ephesians 4:13-15:

[U]ntil we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects unto Him, who is the head, even Christ …

Paul describes the mature person as one who is not tossed and carried about by ideas and opinions, first clinging to one thing then another to the exclusion of all others. Notice that he places no value judgement on the “waves” and “doctrine” as he does on the latter two; it is not only untrue or false ideas that cause us to keep the mountain and sea separate. The goal of “the unity of the faith” and “grow[ing] up in all aspects” as described by Paul is reiterated by Edinger who describes the mature individual as one “able to experience opposite viewpoints simultaneously.”

[ Parts I, II, III, IV ]

We now come to some of the most provocative passages dealing with faith: Matthew 17:14-21 in which Jesus casts out a demon his disciples are unable to cast out; Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:12-14, 20-26 in which Jesus curses the fig tree; and Luke 17:5-6 in which the disciples ask for increased faith. In these passages, Jesus describes the sheer power available to those with the smallest amount of faith:

… if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you. (Matthew 17:20)

… if you have faith, and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it shall happen. And all things you ask in prayer, believing,  you shall receive. (Matthew 21:21b,22)

Have faith in God. Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it shall be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be granted you. (Mark 11:22b-24)

If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you. (Luke 17:6)

One of the most interesting aspects of these accounts is the fact that Jesus does not qualify his statements. In two of the accounts all that is necessary is faith like (or as) a mustard seed. In the other two accounts one only need to believe (or have faith) and not doubt. Now, to many, these statements must necessarily be hyperbolic and most will add de facto constraints on Jesus’ statements. For example, the Ryrie Study Bible includes a footnote for the Matthew 17 passage stating, “The will of God, of course, governs all things, including this promise,” and for the Mark 11 passage: “This principle is qualified by Christ in other teaching (Matt. 6:10) and in His own life (Mark 14:36).” In the latter footnote the first reference is the Lord’s Prayer in which we are to pray for God’s will to be done and the second is Christ’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his crucifixion in which he asks God to “remove this cup” but then defers to God’s will over his own.

But, in fact, Jesus does not qualify his statements to the disciples. If, as Ryrie’s footnote maintains, “the will of God, of course, governs all things,” then we have a few potential problems. The first is, of course, that God is responsible for evil since all things are governed by his will; but that is outside the scope of this article. The second is why tell us to pray that God’s will be done if God’s will governs all things? I shall return to this later. Lastly, Jesus is, to put it mildly, not being very fair. Imagine telling your daughter that she can have whatever she wants to eat but then deny her ice cream, cake, a lollipop, and a chocolate bar because you want her to have Brussels sprouts. If you already have in mind what she is going to eat, why give her the choice? If what happens is subjugated to God’s will then why tell us we can do whatever we want?

One way out of the last dilemma is simply to have your daughter ask for Brussels sprouts when that’s what you want her to have. In other words, have her desires coincide with your desires. It is precisely because there is no qualification that the desires of those having faith align with God’s desires that the desires of those having faith will, by definition, align with God’s desires. What Jesus is really telling us is what it takes to be like God: faith like a mustard seed, belief without doubt. Ram Dass takes this idea even further. In The Only Dance There Is, which is a transcription of two of his lectures, he says:

When Christ says “Had ye but faith, ye could move mountains,” he’s not putting you on. This is not some lovely metaphor saying it’s hard just to lead a good clean life. That isn’t what it’s about at all. He’s just telling you how it is: that were you at a certain level of consciousness you could move a mountain, literally. But the way it happens is very far out. It only happens when you have transcended that in you which is separate from the mountain, so that you are, in fact, the mountain, and then you move. … To the extent that you are the mountain that moves, you are also the being that put the mountain there in the first place. He neglected to say that could you move mountains, you probably wouldn’t because you put it there in the first place. (page 76, 77)

Not only are we like God, we are God. Faith puts us in a state where we realize that we are the one who put the mountain there in the first place. Either way, whether we have the same desires as God or we are God, this is a very powerful statement yet deceptively simple. “Have faith in God” and your desires will be those of God. “If you have faith like a mustard seed” you will realize that you are one with God. What could be more simple? Yet nothing could be harder for us to comprehend or achieve.

[ Parts I, II, III ]

[ This series starts here. I've revised the last paragraph in installment #2 and included it here. ]

In what do we have faith? The pat answer is that we have faith in God or Jesus. A clue to how Jesus may have answered the question is in Matthew 16:5-12:

And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus has two criticisms of his disciples: “Do you not yet understand or remember … ?” Their failure to understand is their misapprehension of his comment about leaven which is not a matter of faith. So, why did Jesus call them “men of little faith”? Because they saw him perform a miracle and doubted that he could do it again. To give them some benefit of the doubt, perhaps they saw this situation as different from the feeding of the five and four thousands. In those cases, they had some bread. Here they have none and see this situation as different and “harder.” One wonders what Jesus told his disciples of his temptation in the dessert. Had he shared what he went through, they would have known that he was able to turn stones into bread. But without this knowledge, this may have seemed an impossible situation. In any case, their lack of faith seems to be manifested in their doubt after seeing Jesus’ past miracles. At this point, even the disciples were not all convinced that Jesus was the Son of God so in what would they have anchored their faith other than Jesus’ past actions? The object of the faith is Jesus but the motivation for faith is in Jesus’ past actions. Is that also not the most logical reason for the actions of people we’ve discussed so far? Perhaps Jesus exuded some special pheromones or had a magnetic personality but it seems more likely that people saw his miracles and some had faith that he could do it again.

Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that faith is not “blind” but is based on past experience. In the part about being anxious, Jesus says that we should have faith because we see what God does for the birds and flowers:

“But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!” (Matthew 6:30)

But it seems that simply seeing is not enough. As has been demonstrated in the miracles we’ve looked at so far, Jesus emphasizes the aspects of action and expectation in his sermon:

“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matthew 6:31-33)

The centurion, the men with their friend on the roof, and the hemorrhaging woman all acted in a way that demonstrated their expectation of a healing miracle. The disciples in the boat during the storm acted but without the expectation of the desired outcome and were not credited with having faith. James 6:26 says that “faith without works is dead” and Jesus said “Do this and all these things will be added to you.”

We now come to a miracle in which faith is conspicuously missing (Matthew 9:18-26, Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-42,49-56). The synagogue official, Jairus, who asked Jesus to heal his daughter seemed to be not much different than the others who demonstrated faith. He believed Jesus could heal but he is not credited with faith—in any of the three accounts. The subtle difference with Jairus’ approach is that he deferred to Jesus by saying “If it is your will …” He fully believed Jesus was able but questioned his willingness—just as the disciples questioned Jesus’ willingness to save them during the storm. Jairus did not presume the healing as did all the others we’ve looked at so far.

[ This series starts here ]

The next two miracles add to faith an aspect of action. They bring to mind platitudes such as, “Just do it” and “Leap and the net will appear.” These are the stories of the man lowered through the roof (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, and Luke 5:18-20) and the woman with the hemorrhage (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34, and Luke 8:43-48). In the former story, the narrative says that Jesus saw their faith. Now, putting aside any supernatural interpretation, what Jesus would have seen was their determination to get their friend in front of him—a determination demonstrated by destroying someone else’s property. Many, many people brought the sick to Jesus and they were healed (see Matthew 8:16). So, why was this group singled out as particularly faithful? Again, putting aside any notion of Jesus “seeing into their hearts” or “seeing their true nature,” we are only left with their deliberate action of putting the man in front of Jesus with the expectation of healing. They did not wait in line, they did not ask, they were essentially presumptuous that Jesus would heal if they got in his face. What about “make your requests made known unto God”?

The latter story of the hemorrhaging woman also indicates that faith is manifested by action. In this case, Jesus plays a passive role in the miracle and it is almost as if the woman heals herself. Again, we see presumption on the woman’s part: “If I only touch his garment I will be made well.” There is no notion of asking Jesus for healing or if it is his will. There is only “If I do … I will …” Now, many people were touching Jesus but only this one was healed because she knew she would be. It makes one wonder, did she have to touch Jesus’ garment to be healed? Could her faith not have healed her without doing that physical action? Or did she need to demonstrate her faith with a physical action?

In what do we have faith? The pat answer is that we have faith in God or Jesus. A clue to a more precise answer is in Matthew 16:5-12 where Jesus scolds the disciples about seeing his past miracles and not thinking he could do it again. So, the object of the faith is Jesus but the motivation for faith is in Jesus’ past actions. Is that not the most logical reason for the actions of people we’ve discussed so far? Perhaps Jesus exuded some special pheromones or had a magnetic personality but it seems more likely that people saw his miracles and some had faith that he could do it again. Obviously, not everyone held this opinion as our current story indicates with the disciples apparently forgetting that Jesus fed 5000 with five loves and two fishes. Indeed, in what else could these people possibly have had faith? It was not a foregone conclusion, at this stage, that Jesus was the Son of God so he would have been nothing more than another teacher; yet a teacher who was working miracles and teaching, perhaps, an offbeat message.

Part III

[ I am working on an essay about Faith and will post it in several sections on my blog. I'm interested in any constructive criticisms you may have that will improve this piece. I will make the final essay available to anyone interested when it is completed. ]

Faith is one of the cornerstones of Christianity but what it means to have faith is open to interpretation. To the one extreme are those who take every precaution this world affords — life, health, disability, and dental insurance; retirement plans; consulting weather forecasts; etc. — and seem to leave little in the hands of faith. To the other extreme are those who avoid all medical care and rely totally and solely on God for healing. So, what is faith? What does it mean to “have” faith? Is there even an objective answer to these questions or is faith completely subjective? To shed some light on the matter of faith, I will look at the miracles which Jesus performed and attempt to find some common threads linking those which Jesus specifically attributes to faith. After establishing what Jesus constitutes as faith, I will look at how faith is portrayed elsewhere in the New Testament and what faith may mean for us today.

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 relates the story of the centurion who asks Jesus to heal his servant. The two accounts differ somewhat but the essential pieces of the story are that Jesus was asked to heal the servant and the centurion would not let Jesus come into his house but insisted that Jesus had the authority to perform the healing from afar. Being in the Roman army, the centurion claims that he knows something about and appreciates the power that comes with authority. This seems to be what constitutes his faith. It may also have something to do with the fact that the centurion attributed such authority to Jesus but it is not clear whether this was because he knew or believed Jesus to be the Son of God or because he simply recognized a man who possessed authority. In either case, the key seems to be the fact that the centurion knew that Jesus was able to heal his servant and acted on that knowledge by essentially telling Jesus that he had the authority (i.e. the power). The centurion further emphasized Jesus’ authority by not allowing Jesus to physically touch his servant but forced him to delegate, so to speak.

Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:36-41, and Luke 8:22-25 contain an example of a lack of faith with some similarities to the centurion story. This is the story of Jesus calming the storm after falling asleep in the boat with the disciples. The disciples had to wake him up to ask him to save them. Jesus calls them “timid” and “men of little faith.” But the reasoning is a bit confused in this story. If the disciples doubted Jesus’ power, his ability to save them, why did they bother asking him? Would they not have called out to some other god or attempt to save themselves? It seems that what the disciples doubted was Jesus’ desire to save them, hence is love for them, because they asked, “Do you not care that we perish?” This story comes after Jesus’ sermon in Matthew but before a similar discourse in Luke where he tells us to not be anxious for our everyday needs such as food, clothing, and by extension, not drowning in a stormy sea. Adding Jesus’ statements there to the equation, it seems that the disciples should have expected to be saved. Jesus, in his sermons, said, “And all these things shall be added to you.” The centurion told Jesus that he could heal the servant with the expectation that it would be done and this is what the disciples did not do.

So, faith, according to Jesus’ working definition, contains an aspect of expectation of the desired result.

Part II

One can be a person of faith without being an idiot.

“Faith and Science” by Mystical Seeker on Find and Ye Shall Seek

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.