scholarship, history, faith & obedience

[unkleE]

This post is really a question about thinking and doing.

I am a believer in Jesus, so I want to try to follow his teachings and example. I also want, in fact need, my belief to be based on truth. I find these things lead me to different activities.

Regarding truth, I want to know true facts (as much as they can be discerned) about God, the universe and especially about Jesus and history. I want to know trustworthy people have done the hard work to give me information which I can use to make judgments about truth - Are the gospels reliable as history, or at least as biography? Am I understanding them correctly? Overall, my reading has confirmed that the records are generally reliable, and have helped me understand them better. But things keep changing, and so I keep reading, and coming to forums like this.

On the other hand, Jesus urges and sometimes commands me to do things like loving my neighbour in practical ways, to join his followers, to love God with my whole self, to seek his (or God's) forgiveness when I miss the mark, and to be willing to share my faith with others. These are pretty much full time, lifetime, tasks.

My dilemma is this. Spending large amounts of time on strengthening my own understanding can eat into the time I have for following Jesus in those more practical ways. (After all, much of each day is spent in the stuff of life, and the discretionary time remaining is not always large.) I think I am sometimes tempted to do the first, when I should be doing the second.

I wonder how others on this forum feel about these matters?

[hawkinthesnow]

Unklee. I see you have had a number of viewers but no one has responded to you yet.

It is hard to tell from what you say whether you are looking to reading and studying to deepen your understanding of what you believe, or whether you are wavering in your faith, and are looking for evidence to bolster your faith.

If the former, then I suppose it is just a matter of finding the right balance for you between the intellectual and the practical.

If the latter, then I think that you need to resolve your doubts to your own satisfaction. That doesn't mean that you have to find answers to every niggling question that comes along, but as Paul says, enough to have a reason for your faith, and some justification to offer to others who challenge you.

There is a golden mean between two extremes I think. On one hand, you can just be entirely devotional - that is rely on your own religious experience to support you. I think that kind of spirituality is best captured in the phrase "Jesus is the answer - now what's the question?" On the other hand there is the danger of becoming too cerebral, so bogged down with the intellectual side of belief that you can't stop and just enjoy the other things, worship and prayer and so on.

As regards the gospels, and whether they are historically reliable. Without the church, there would be no gospels, and without Jesus there would be no church, so rather than worrying overly about whether such an event did or didn't happen, when you read the gospels, just ask yourself what is the author telling me about what Jesus means to him? Each of the gospels paints a different portrait of Jesus, conveys different lessons to be learnt from Him.

I can recommend a book by Richard Burridge, called "Four Gospels, One Jesus?" in which he explores this theme of how each writer uses the material at his disposal to create a different image of Jesus from the others, but how they all complement each other. He illustrates his theme by way of reference to the Book of Kells, which is a mediaeval illustrated manuscript which was prioduced by the monks of Iona, then moved to Kells in Ireland when they fled from the Vikings. In the Book of Kells, each gospel is represented by an illustration - St Mark by a lion, St Matthew by a man, St Luke by an ox, and St John by an eagle - each represents a different facet of what Jesus was - and in his book Burridge provides a brief survey of how each gospel can be read to draw out the symbolic signifcance o feach of these "four creatures".

Burridge warns his readers about trying to harmonise the gospels into one master narrative. He explains that the early church was aware that the gospels contained different, and in some cases apparently contradictory accounts of the same events, but refused the temptation to try and produce a master narrative, prefering instead to live with the four gospels as they were, and to treasure them all.

Although Burridge does not use the image himself, I like to think of the Four gospels as rather like a stained glass window where you have a number of different panels. Although the panels are all different, they are all part of the window, and they all equally let the light in, although a different effect is created by each. The overall effect however, always seems to be greater than the sum of it's parts.

[unkleE]

hawkinthesnow

Thanks for your response - you were both encouraging and thoughtful.

No, I am not wavering in my faith, but rather thinking about how I spend my time. I retired several years ago, and theoretically have more time than I used to (theoretically, in practice - "between the idea and the reality falls the shadow" TS Eliot). I have chosen to spend some of that time on the internet, in various ways. For example, I have joined forums like this one, which are primarily devoted to christians discussing their faith and beliefs, and also spent some time writing and discussing with a more apologetic intent.

All this has led me to consider several questions: How useful is discussion with non-believers, when compared to face to face relating? How much time should I spend in discussion with christians and how much in discussing with non-believers?

This post was musing about the second of those two.

[hawkinthesnow]

I see you like Eliot too. I just love the Four Quartets. I spent some time on IIDB (Internet Infidels) several years ago, debating the historicity of Jesus, and decided it was a huge waste of time really. There are still some believers who post there, maybe they find the experience worthwhile, I didn't really. I would think that face to face is probably more productive than internet debating. The nature of the medium lends itself to confrontation rather than dialogue, and I think it takes a degree of maturity and humility on both sides to enter into genuine dialogue across the theist/nontheist divide.

That's my opinion anyway.

[unkleE]

Yes, that's one of the questions I was canvassing. I too spent time on an atheist forum (Why Won't God Heal Amputees?) and I too eventually left for similar reasons. Rather than expand on that here, I think I will start a new topic just for that. I still look in occasionally, but I think it is mostly of little value to them or to me.

But I was also musing about other questions (I think I must have been a bit obscure, for which I apologise), namely:

I wonder how much value christian apologetic websites are? (I have one, but it so far seems to be achieving little, although I heard from another recently which claims many visits and conversions.)

And how much should we spend time on christian forums like this, discussing our own sometimes arcane questions? (It's nice to meet new people, and I find much of James' blog very helpful, but there is also work to do - like loving people, sharing faith, righting wrongs etc. I still wonder whether I, and others, get that balance right.)

So it was just musings and I wondered how other people felt.

Best wishes.

P.S. Yes, I am a little too lazy to get into much "serious literature", but I do appreciate TS Eliot, just as I love Aussie novelist Tim Winton.

[isidor]

"My dilemma is this. Spending large amounts of time on strengthening my own understanding can eat into the time I have for following Jesus in those more practical ways."

For whatever reason, I think a lot of us grew up with the idea that the strengthening of the Understanding was less of a religious duty and spiritual neccesity and more of an interesting but unessential (an sometimes, ultimately irrelevant) hobby. Every major teacher in the Latin Church I've ever read (maybe with the exception of Tertullian), the Anglican divines, and at least John Chrysostom in the Greek Church, all talk about the spiritual centrality of the intellect. Even the ones who are famous for obscurantism, like St. Bernard, talk about the importance of the understanding--they just thought that Thomas and Bonaventure and the rest of those guys were doing it wrong.

I think there are a lot of better ways to pursue this end than message boards on the internet, and I'm not sure how much good message boards do as evangelism, when Mary "pondered the words in her heart," she was engaging in an undeniably intellectual activity. St. Augustine talked continually about "food for the mind" as well.

[elephantchang51]

Dear unklee,
You say'I also want,in fact need my belief to be based on truth'.This perplexes me and possibly highlights a major difference between theists and atheists.I hope my wants and needs are irrelevant to my pursuit of truth,at least I believe they should be.Does your statement show too high a level of emotional commitment to a particular outcome?Iask this in the spirit of sincere inquiry,and not to score cheap points.
Yours Peter.

[humphreyclarke]

Jun 14, 2008 11:59:32 GMT elephantchang51 said:

Dear unklee,
You say'I also want,in fact need my belief to be based on truth'.This perplexes me and possibly highlights a major difference between theists and atheists.I hope my wants and needs are irrelevant to my pursuit of truth,at least I believe they should be.Does your statement show too high a level of emotional commitment to a particular outcome?Iask this in the spirit of sincere inquiry,and not to score cheap points.
Yours Peter.

Hi Peter

I would say that, in general, both Atheists and Theists are united in thinking they are engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth. The trouble is, according to the best historiographical theory, such an approach is impossible. Post modernists have tried, to little or no effect. We are human beings after all and therefore our thinking inevitably draws on flawed human concepts. We shouldn't therefore delude ourselves into thinking we have no emotional store in whatever arguement we are engaged in, nor should we be entirely dispassionate because that would make for a very boring discussion indeed.

Humphrey

[unkleE]

Peter

Thanks for comments & questions - I certainly did not assume any "bad" motives. But I think you misunderstood me.

I meant simply that it is important to me to base what I believe on objective truth, perhaps more important for me than for many people. I agree with Humphrey that truth cannot and should not be seen as totally objective or totally subjective, but I think I may be more towards the objective end of the spectrum than many people.

So what I was describing was the opposite of your suggestion: "too high a level of emotional commitment to a particular outcome", but rather a high emotional commitment to objective truth.

In my experience, many people are apparently not much committed to objective truth, even many who say they are, and it is not just theists who have faith. Perhaps I am more like that than I am aware, but that is not my intention.

Best wishes

[elephantchang51]

Dear unklee,
Thanks for your interesting reply.Perhaps one of the biggest differences between our positions is the way we use language.. it's very rare for an atheist to talk about their wants and needs [this implies desirability?],when talking about the 'truth'.
Are we now agreed that the desirability of any outcome,is utterly irrelevant to the truth,even if we cannot avoid it interfering in our search?
Yours Peter.

[unkleE]

Peter

I think your question has to be answered on several different levels .....

1. I think your comment "it's very rare for an atheist to talk about their wants and needs [this implies desirability?],when talking about the 'truth'" is very interesting. It seems to imply that objectivity is obviously the default and correct position, and doesn't require discussion. But I think this is a mistake. Philosophically, we cannot assume that, we need to argue it. I think atheists commonly assume a scientific, logical positivist viewpoint (that the only way to know something is via empirical evidence) without even thinking about it, and are very resistant to the view that that assumption needs examination. This is a specially regrettable ommission granted that positivism is no longer very well favoured by philosophers.

2. So an approach to truth that assumes objectivity is the only factor assumes too much. For example, knowing my wife is not just an objective, dispassionate thing! And I suggest knowing God is likewise more than just scientific fact. I believe God does not so much reward those who look for irrefutable evidence (that, after all would favour the intelligent and the educated, and why would a good God want to reward that?) but those who humbly look for truth on a wider level.

3. But I agree that we should not allow what we want to be true to overly influence our determining what actually is true. But I also think we have to bring our whole selves to the search, and not assume only the rational will be necessary or useful - after all, making the assumption that we have to fully understand something to believe it to be true is clearly a question-begging assumption when considering a possible God!

4. Finally, our attitude does determine what we allow ourselves to believe. If we are going to know the truth about God, we need to be willing to believe that God might exist and be willing to believe that he does exist if the evidence points that way. I think atheists often fall short at this point. In the end, we are all autonomous beings, and being willing to submit to another being (God) doesn't come easily to us. I think this is a major barrier for many atheists.

What do you think?

[elephantchang51]

Dear unklee,
I need a little time to fully digest your comments,I've always regarded 'objectivity',as an ideal position albeit an impossible one in practice.To hear it challenged in such a plausible manner requires some consideration
Yours as always,Peter.

[elephantchang51]

Dear unklee,
After mulling over your comments re. subjectivity,I have to say that when against my better judgement I take a more subjective view my disbelief in god hardens.I cannot physically remember when I first had the gut instinct that what I was being told at Sunday school,and regular school,did not add up,but I was probably about 6.So basically I've always disbelieved.For a spell I thought I was agnostic,but then I realised you can be agnostic about just about anything if you are pedantic enough.It was never 50-50 doubt.
So there it is,if you encourage subjectivity,it can be a double -edged sword.
Yours,Peter.

[unkleE]

Peter,

Fair enough. But I think you have taken a rather "binary" aprroach to what I said! : )

I don't think there are just two settings on the objective-subjective scale, and I don't actually suggest "gut instinct" is a reliable means of decision making on these matters, or anything much else for that matter.

It seems to me that in all decision we need always to start with the facts we can get, the truth as much as we can know it. Then we need to think what is the appropriate way to assess those facts (and this is where I think science and atheism sometimes make unwarranted reductionist assumptions). Then we also need to think through the implications, and the emotional outcomes and perhaps even gut feeling about the truth and interpretation of the information available.

All this is true for all decisions, but in some cases (e.g. our favourite book or film) the facts are not very important and feelings are paramount, but in other cases, the facts are critical.

In the case of God, facts are very important, but we must remember that the scientific method is not appropriate for making the whole assessment or decision. When examining the fine-tuned universe, the scientific method is needed, but we need more than that to draw conclusions (as even the multiverse proponents know!). When examining the life of Jesus, historical analysis is needed, but again, something more is required to make the decision either to reject that Jesus told the truth or to accept that.

We also have to recognise that belief in God is also a matter of the will - we don't naturally submit to God or anyone else, so that we may choose to disbelieve because we don't want to submit than for good reasons. (Obviously there will be some people who will want to submit even if it isn't true, because of their own needs, but I reckon not many of them are discussing on forums like this!)

Not sure where we go from here, but I'm interested in further discussion if you are.