I want to make it clear why I must break one of my most beloved friends, John Stegeman. Since he's - in all likelihood - the only person reading this, I won't be wasting anyone's time, and he's sure to misinterpret my motives. What I do is not for his own good; I don't believe he will be happier as one of the godless. It's not for the betterment of society, since it will probably not make him a more productive person. And it's certainly not for the cause of Justice or Righteousness or some such thing. It's for the cause of aesthetics. When the light hits my retinas and I see him faithless, things will be a little more orderly and neat. Something that was skewed for so long will have been squared neatly with the rest, and the overall scene will be much more pleasant because of it.
I am a man of reason. I'm not stating that because I'm proud of it. I don't think that reason necessarily makes a person happier, stronger or more proper. It's just a statement of fact. I've tried and failed to have faith. It's not in me to suspend disbelief. For me, I can only have one vehicle for understanding the world, and that's reason. I've stopped resisting this and now embrace it.
My friend Alex is the opposite of myself. To quote Orwell for the second time today, Alex is a Newthinker. If Alex is alone in a room, and he believes that he is floating, then he is floating. If something is required to be true, Alex makes it true through belief. If that same thing is suddenly required to be false, it is instantly false through Alex's belief. If something is required to be both absolutely true and false in the same instant, then it is. Alex has the "true faith" in a way that even the most devoted mystics and holy men could have never imaged, or understood, for that matter. Alex's faith is beautiful because of it's total purity, simplicity and raw will.
So, if I'm an Oldthinker, and Alex is a Newthinker then that makes my friend John the protagonist. Winston Smith, the everyman that most will relate to; that's John. He is a reasonable man with a set of beliefs. He's usually very committed to those beliefs, although it's certainly true that he frequently transgresses. He'll be quick to take the blame for his own flaws and mistakes, though. He would never question the validity or value of his Church and Doctrine. At the same time, he would never give up reason for the sake of belief. You won't see him bombing an abortion clinic or any such thing. He'll continue paying his taxes and going to work.
John has two vehicles for understanding the world. He's got a foot on each vehicle, and as the world proceeds, and each vehicle veers together, then apart (sometimes far apart), John's legs splay, his body contorts, and appendages dislocate. It's quite an effort that he pulls off remarkably well. But it's unfortunately true that someday (maybe decades from now) the world is going to break him. He's going to lose one of the vehicles, and he's going to be left with only reason. How can I be so sure that he won't give up reason for the sake of belief? Because John could never be Alex. He's simply not made of the right stuff (perhaps noone is). He can't have that "true faith", and he's also not the sort to pull the release valve and give in to madness. That leaves him with firmly in the domain of reason, and the faithless.
I will not wait for that to happen. It's an assault on taste to allow this half & half act to continue any longer than it has to. The nauseating mix of dogma and a prioi reason that churns out of his spaghetti factory. Repulsive. In the end, he'll end up with one of us, and I know it has to be me. "Observe this prize person who denies he's for hire!". We all have our limits and our price. In the end, there's a level of pain that will buy him. So, what I do is a kindness, not a cruelty. Why wait until he's a useless old husk? Let's get this over with now. I think I'm going to have to get out of my comfort zone if I'm going to pull this off. I'm game for the challenge, though.
Buddy I love you but you're a bit of a jackass.
ReplyDeleteFaith and reason aren't opposing things. They are intertwined. God's word and world are revealed better to us with reason. I'm no Alex, God bless him, but he, you and I are all sinners. And while I know the depths of your ability, my faith is stronger than you give it credit for.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBravo! Your blog post was witty, poetic, and conveyed your purpose perfectly. However, I shall go ahead and cast my lot by saying that your efforts will be fruitless. Yes, there is a glimmer of doubt rustling about in his mind, but overall his faith supersedes his reason. Nevertheless, it should be an interesting game.
ReplyDeleteI don't see no G, Baloney!
ReplyDeleteI know a little about how faith and reason work together. I've tried it once or twice myself, you know. They work because you've had enough time to train yourself not to see the obvious, and because you've spent vast periods of time among other's with that training. Lying to yourself about your perceptions and what they imply becomes a mundane, ordinary thing. It's nothing special, every single person does it every single day. To do the opposite, to see what's right in front of your nose is something that requires a constant struggle.
I can't force you into that struggle, this I know. Matt's right about that. That's why reason, or at least reason alone, cannot be my weapon. I'll have to be creative and use John-methods, not Dungy-methods.
"sure as I know the sun will rise and sure as I know it I drop a pen it will fall to the ground, I believe in one God the father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, his son jesus, that he died for us, the church etc. All of it."
ReplyDeleteI can't resist. This is either near unprecedented hyperbole, or deliberate untruth for the sake of rhetoric. I've never heard any man of faith claim to this kind of "knowledge" of God. Even the most devout would (and should) fess up to a little doubt.
If this statement were true, you would be amused (or maybe just indifferent) to my attempts to shake your faith, because it would be no threat to you. Not so?
THAT is the foundation that holds reason and faith together in the mind: churchy words with no meaning behind them. If God does truly exist (and he may), what would he think about a statement like that?
John, I do not think that Dungy is insulting your faith, or saying that it is not strong
ReplyDeletehe thinks that we can not hold both Christianity and logic, and that in the end you will have to give up one
you do not think he is right, but he is not being "a jackass"
Dungy
ReplyDeleteI am not going to sit here and judge the faith of my friend John
We are saved by the grace of Christ and not by our own merit
I do love what you said about having your feet on two vehichles, it is not aesthetical
if we are to serve Christ it can not be based on logic or apitite (the desire to avoid the burning fires of hell would be an apitite would it not?)
if we follow God because of logic then Logic is our god and the Lord is mearly middle managment
God needs to come first
I removed my earlier post because as Dungy noted, my level of certainty when it comes to God is not the same as observable phenomena.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was inebriated when I wrote it.
Dungy you're not a jackass, I'm just knee jerking because I got enough swimming around in my head without this coming battle but alas, there is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven. Guess this is that time.
I hadn't considered the possibility of innebriation. I'll try to be more open to those possibilities in the future.
ReplyDeleteI realize that I'm causing you stress at a time that is stressful enough already. I truly take no enjoyment in that.
Therefore, I offer you another option. I will drop this matter and forget that I ever mentioned it in the first place. The condition is that you must admit that the truth (or pursuit of knowledge of what's true) is not your primary concern. It is a secondary matter to you.
I want to be perfectly clear what such a statement implies. If truth isn't the primary concern, than it means that something else supercedes and takes precedence over it. That would probably be either your own happiness, or your sense of fidelty and loyalty to the notion of God/Family/Church. It means that if life presented you with logically sound evidence (not some abstract "can god create a boulder too heavy for him to lift" bullshit, but relevant life experience) that put your faith and way of life in jeopardy, you would not not consider that evidence, in favor of preserving those other priorities.
This isn't an uncommon thing for people to do (very common I'd say, I may have done it already today), but it is definately uncommon to hear someone state it openly and without reservation.
Strongly assert the dominance of faith over logic in your mind, and I will drop this. Please consider this carefully and above all be honest. Don't just humor me.
I'm not ready to admit that yet. I don't deny that if I were faced with incontrovertible evidence against God's existence, I may choose for my own sake to ignore them. I just might.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I could live that lie for long though.
Thing is I still do believe that that is impossible because God does exist.
Wish I could take your deal. Just can't.
I think I have changed my mind.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that if I could be presented with undeniable evidence against God's existence I may choose to ignore it, I failed to consider something.
I believe my faith to be strong enough that there is no such evidence that I would view as undeniable. I think that were I presented with the best possible argument against God's existence, I am more likely to be believe that we just didn't have all the right info, and I would still believe.
Note that what I'm saying isn't that my reasons for continued belief would be for the reasons you stated of happiness, or my sense of fidelity and loyalty to the notion of God/Family/Church as much as for my faith in God.
I therefore do assert the dominance of my faith over logic and I thank you, Sullobog and Kilmer for their assistance in helping me to see this.
If this satisfies your demands, good. If not, so be it.
Also I believe after looking at this that atheists are the same way but on the other side. I think that no matter the evidence of God presented, most will not be swayed. Atheism has it's own faith in one's self.
You of course are pretty unique as an atheist having gone from that to theism and back so I'm not sure the same applies to you.
Anywho, just a thought.
I just flushed an hour of my life down the tubes writing a response that blogspot ate. Lame.
ReplyDeleteYou're saying that since there's no perfect, incontrovertable proof against God's existence, there would always be a little doubt, which would be enough for you to continue to believe.
ReplyDeleteI don't take exception to that statement per se. However, you're being a little slippery with your language, and the effect is that you are sidestepping the central dilemma instead of confronting it.
Of course there's no incontrovertable proof against God. That kind of proof is a straw man. Proof like that is impossible for negative statements (like "such and such doesn't exist"), and a clever person can even drive a wedge into proofs of positive statements (like "such and such does exist").
So no, you won't ever be faced with proof of God's non-existence (and it has nothing to do with the "strength of your faith").
The point is that in this hypothetical situation, you're offered evidence that is persuasive to you. It's not proof, but it strikes a serious chord and makes a lot of sense.
The point is that you're in an unforeseen and previously unknown situation, where you must make a choice and a sacrifice. The two are at odds and one must come first.
In your statement, you're not really sacrificing anything, you're just denying the premise, that such a choice would ever be necessary or possible.
"Also I believe after looking at this that atheists are the same way but on the other side. I think that no matter the evidence of God presented, most will not be swayed. Atheism has it's own faith in one's self."
ReplyDeleteThis could be a fun side conversation.
I once railed against atheists who claimed to be certain of God's non-existence. The only problem was, I never actually met any. It's impossible to be certain of God's non-existence. Atheists (or agnostics) that I've talked to (or read) recognize this, and would never make such a certain statement.
I consider myself a skeptic, and that the leap of faith necessary to believe in an abrahamic god with the evidence available would be irresponsible for me to accept.
But the keywords "I believe after looking at this" and "I think that no matter the evidence of God presented, most will not be swayed" have really got my attention (since they're fairly accusatory in tone).
I invite you to back this statement up. Indeed, I invite you to declare the same jihad on me that I have on you. I swear on my single kidney, which means so much to me, that I will give this a fair hearing with all sincerity and good faith. Let's make this thing mutual!
John, are you saying that you would never change your belief on God because of your love for him or just stubbornness and your ability to avoid the logical ends of good arguments?
ReplyDeleteDungy and Alex, I'm saying because of my belief in God I don't believe I am capable of viewing even the most hypothetical smoking gun argument against His existence as anything other than say a test of faith or something like that.
ReplyDeleteThe reason-sided part of me doesn't like that statement, but it's true. My belief in God was never based on hard evidence and I don't think any amount of evidence could turn it other way.
As for the possible side discussion, I don't mean it accusatory. You sir are not the typical atheist to me. The typical atheist (at least in my mind) is a lot like the basic mainstream christian.
Both are usually one of three things: A. Raised that way, don't really care. B. Raised in a home without strong inclinations either way. C. Rebel against their folks.
My point is that the bulk of people aren't like us, as we know of course. We have beliefs with footing.
I'm not saying either of us is for sure right though we both believe we are. It's just that we've examined things, thought about them, in my case prayed about them and then we came to where we are.
Yes I was raised Catholic, to my knowledge so was Alex and that's where we are. If I recall right your Dad is an atheist, and that's where you are.
But in the three of our cases I don't think we're just a product of our raising.
Anyway I'm getting off point. Fact is most people place their faith above reason, whether a faith in a god for the theist or a faith in their own mind and self for an atheist.
I wish I could back that up. But at the moment it's time to start work.
John,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you're saying that your perceptions, what you sense of the world around you, and the logical implications of those perceptions, do not have any leverage over your faith. That even if those perceptions were taken to extremes, like the world crashing around you, or some unlikely cataclysm, you would look at that data as a test of your faith, rather than evidence against it.
If so, that's pretty much what I was asking for. You've made it clear that you believe faith to be an essential concern, and reacting to logic as a secondary concern. It would be pointless for me to act against the faith of such a person anyway, so keeping with my promise, I'll drop my attempts.
Yay then
ReplyDelete