Am I willing to do that?
Another Jehovah's Witness, who signed his comment on yesterday's post as "Brandon," suggests that I may have a motive for not being willing. He says that
many people [of whom, he implies, I am one] refuse to believe in God not because of the evidence, but because they don't want to be accountable to a higher power's set of moral standards...also [they] don't want an answer to life's many "big questions"' because then they would be forced to act. However, if they allow themselves to be stuck in a state of "analysis paralysis"' then they can continue on with their life. People in general resist change. So it's no wonder that they ignore or disbelieve things that would cause them to change.So, I'm trying to make it easy for myself, is that what I'm doing? Would someone who knows me a bit better than Brandon does (after a cursory look at a few of my posts) care to comment on this?
Brandon goes on to demonstrate that he himself has taken the leap. He adduces a number of proofs from the Bible that God isn't at all evil, it's man himself and Satan!
Why must God be evil? The Bible says that man has dominated man to his injury. (Ecclesiastes 8:9)Brandon suggests that I could ask a better question:
Also, if you remember the account of Job, it was Satan, not God, who did those evil things to Job. Also note what James 1:13 says: "When under trial, let no one say: 'I am being tried by God.' For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone."
Why does God permit evil, whether it be Satan or wicked people?And he even supplies the answer:
The answer is that He will not let it continue indefinitely.Brandon asks me (with a straight face, I'm sure):And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more;The reason He is allowing it now is so that man can try to rule himself. Remember that in the Garden of Eden man and Satan challenged God's right to rule and [asked?] whether men can or should rule themselves. So He is permitting [men to rule themselves] so that that issue will be settled once and for all. Would it be just for God just to kill Adam and Eve and start over? Wouldn't God look like a tyrant then? Remember that there were angels watching this, and doing so would have just given Satan's claims weight.
And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be.
But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth,
And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. (Psalms 37:10-11)
What do you think about all this?Well, I really hesitate to say, but my muse offers a limerick:
There was a Bible-quoting J's Witness
Who indicted my faithful unfitness;
"Open your eyes and read," pled he,
"God's plan is there for all to see!
You paralyzed and lazy God's witless!"
Regarding the first century spread of Christianity, I like this scripture from Acts [Acts being the "authorized" history of the new Christian faith]:
ReplyDelete"Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so." 17:11
We look for the same today. You want people that are "noble-minded," not like they were in Thessalonica, where the disciples were run out of town. Noble-minded.....people who were open, who were searching, who didn't assume they already knew everything. Noble-minded, yes, but note....not gullible, for they "carefully examin[ed] the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so." They were never asked to take a "leap of faith" They carefully examined evidence already in existence.
In some societies, that still is all that is needed....to "carefully examin[e] the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so." But in our part of the world, usually more is required, since learned society spends considerable time trashing the authority of "the scriptures." So you have to reestablish that authority before you get some folk to derive benefit from examining scriptures. Often you have to reestablish that authority before you even get them to consent to make such an examination.
This is not an insurmountable task, but it is an extra step. Several publications of Jehovah's Witnesses are devoted entirely to this purpose....considering the Bible via several lines of evidence to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is what it claims to be....God's message for our benefit.
Can't you just uncover such evidence within the university setting? Oddly, no, for the upper echelons of human society are especially intent on denigrating matters pertaining to faith. Their motive? Essentially, I agree with Brandon: they loathe the conclusions the Bible points to and/or the personal responsibility it implies, and so they seek with all their might to undermine it. I've made some similar points in my latest entry:
http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2007/03/philosophers_an.html
Moristotle, please understand when I say these are societal points, I do not assert they are true in your case. (or that they are not) I simply don't know. I am thoroughly unqualified to make such judgments, and so I do not make them with regard to individuals. Nor do I suppose that Brandon was making personal application (to you) of those remarks, though it seems you took it that way. I suspect he, too, was speaking of societal viewpoints, which, since we are in society, can rub off. And I shrink from your challenge (not directed personally to me, I know) to read through your posts and deduce your motives. No. If there are people close enough to you who know what makes you tick, they have no need to read your posts, and reading posts alone will be insufficient for anyone else. I know what you have said. I would not be so presumptuous to tell you why you said it. How would I know?
Now, regarding me, you said: "He suggests that I assent to the Jehovah's Witnesses' contention that the Bible shows that we humans (and other animals? I asked Tom) were intended to live forever." No. I don't suggest that. That would require a "leap of faith." I have never been asked to make one. I would not ask it of you. The preacher who wants you to "come down and be saved" asks it. Not me. What I suggest is that you do what those fellows in Acts did: carefully make an examination as to whether these things are so."
When I asked had you checked that statement about humans living forever, you replied (in "The Problem With Evil") "Tom, Alas, I have not checked into it. I think I haven't done so because I don't know how to." I'm not surprised. To my knowledge, there's only one place where one can check.
In that same answer you stated the concept of living forever on a paradise earth struck you as a "fantasy." Well, of course it would! Trust me, I would look most askance were you, with you background, to say "This is great! Where do I sign up?!" No, it strikes you as a fantasy, as it should. However it may also strike you as an appealing fantasy.
Now, if checking into it called for some outlandish allotment of time, I would reasonably expect you to pass. Ditto if it were expensive. Why waste time and money on a likely "fantasy?" Would that not be naive? But if checking was fast and cheap, then what's the hang-up? The one sharing it would be the naive one, not you, if it truly is fantasy, since that person does it free of charge.
I may have described once the program of home Bible study that our people offer. It's free. It's an hour or so per week. And since you had never heard of the "live forever" premise, maybe you can appreciate why we visit people, even though some (many?) wish we would not. It’s a model as old as time: if you have something worthwhile, you must tell people about it. They rarely come to you. At any rate, the home Bible study is a viable way for you to check into it. Forgive me if I seem too direct, but you did say "Tom, Alas, I have not checked into it. I think I haven't done so because I don't know how to." I am telling you how.
Strangely (and I do not assert this is true in your case) if the program was offered at the university, and if people had to pay a fortune for it, and devote much time, and if they could earn a degree in it, I suspect it would be popular. But, as it is, who offers this program? Clods, bumpkins, Jehovah's Witnesses! What could they possibly know?
But one must be discerning. For such has always been the case with Christianity. It's always been a movement of the common folk....carpenters, fishermen, not the higher classes. For example:
For you behold his calling of you, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are... 1 Cor: 26-28
And when the apostles were summoned before the Sanhedrin (religious leaders of the day): "Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. And they began to recognize about them that they used to be with Jesus." Acts 4:13
In time, the upper classes hijacked Christianity. They found a way to make a buck off it. They found a way to surround it with social prestige and influence. But they so changed Christianity in doing so that it became unrecognizable, worlds apart from what Jesus taught, fully capable of acting contrary to his teachings. That is why Sam Harris (remember him?) can latch onto religious conduct as raw material for his doctrine.
However you also said that you feared "checking would be a waste of time." Alas, for that I have no answer. It's strictly your call. But I hope I've demonstrated how I think it's worth your time and money, since both are negligible and the potential payoff (in peace of mind) is huge.
You said: "I can already hear Tom ask, "Well, would you like to remove your doubt by studying the text and our interpretation of it?" In asking that, he would be challenging me to put up or admit that I don't so much doubt the interpretation as assume that it's wishful thinking and inherently unreliable."......Am I putting too much faith in Schlesinger's contention (by implication) that this problem is and must remain insoluble?"
Yes, that pretty much is what I ask. And yes, I do think you put too much faith in Schlesinger. But, of course, that's my opinion. It's your call.
Morristotle, we have a tradition of speaking to each other forcefully and directly, though always with respect. I trust you'll find my comment has not strayed from those boundaries.
And now, like Brandon, I ask with a straight face: [insert smiley] what do you think of that?
Dear Tom, thank you for your well-phrased and indeed respectful comment, which I much appreciate. Perhaps I owe Brandon an apology for misapplying to myself his possibly merely societal comment—or perhaps not. I'll wait to see what if anything he may say by way of clarifying his own intention.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I must apologize to him (and to everyone else) for suggesting that they owe me a thorough reading of my blog before they attempt to comment on my motives or "the place I'm coming from," although I don't think you are correct in asserting that such a reading would not, in any case, satisfy them on that point. I think it might.
Okay, here's what I think about what you said. I have a number of books at home from the early Christians, including "The Naghamadi Gospels" and Marvin W. Meyer's translation titled "The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels," as well as Elaine Pagels's "The Gnostic Gospels," which it's about time to re-read and enjoy again anyway. I will look into them with a view to getting a handle on the nature of man (and, I hope, other beasts). I am exercising my option not to engage any JWs in this undertaking. The prospect of that feels too much like making an appointment with a life insurance salesman. Sorry about that.
I do not consider that this must be a quick or urgent undertaking, but I will undertake it seriously and with as noble a mind as I have. I so far agree with you about the hijacking of Christianity that I'm rather looking forward to reading those alternative gospels more thoroughly than I have in the past. After all, why did I acquire those books I mentioned? Obviously I have been interested in their contents.
I am, in fact, no student of Schlesinger and had picked up the quote from a recent obituary of the man. But I am mindful that the profound Christian theologian and psychologist Kierkegaard himself spoke of the necessity of a leap of faith for certain [otherwise insoluble] problems. I suspect that the one you have posed me is one of those, despite your contention, however forceful, that no leap of faith is necessary to "examine the evidence."
Be well!
Tom, I should have asked you, What is that "only one place where one can check" on the "live forever" thing? And what exactly might I find there, a statement that God created men (if not other animals) to "never die"? Does anything come with such a statement to prove that God did in fact create men? I'm trying to probe a little into what I thought was your categorical statement that faith is not necessary to know that men (if not other animals) were intended to (and in fact will in some sense?) live forever.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you would (I hope I am not asking too much), please elaborate on "the [huge] potential payoff (in peace of mind)" from knowing that men (if not other animals) will live forever. For example, what does knowing that (you really know it, right?) do for your peace of mind? It would help me to know what it does for you, since you seem to think that I might derive the same benefit.
I mentioned before that learned society today is so intent on trashing Scripture that often one must reestablish its authority before people will agree to make an investigation, and that, while not insurmountable, this does represent an extra step. But another model comes to mind, it may even be the more common one - yes, I believe it is, the more I think about it.
ReplyDeleteThat model is of the person who decides to suspend his doubt so as to make an examination. And upon examination, he comes to appreciate the Bible as a coherent whole (contrary to his prior leanings) in which all loose ends are tied up, and all verses contribute towards a unified theme. Substantive questions are convincingly answered in such a way that they harmonize with each other and with life experience - in short, they make sense. What happens when we die? Why do we grow old and die? Why does God permit evil and suffering? What is the meaning of today's worldwide chaos? What is God's purpose with regard to the earth, with regard to humanity? - these are questions the Bible competently answers. Thereupon, our seeker revisits his original assumption that literal scripture is so much hogwash and finds the reasons for those assumptions not so compelling as he once imagined.
AHA! you may say. Suspend your doubt - so you do have to take a leap of faith! No, I don't think that is accurate. Remember, I have never recommended you adopt any conclusions, only that you commit to a course of investigation. And the best analogy I can think of is in the mathematical world, where it is not uncommon for researchers to assume a condition and see what it leads to. Are they taking a "leap of faith?" No, because the assumption is always tentative. They are ready to dump it the moment it doesn't pan out. As you may know, valuable math is often discovered (invented? the makings of future threads?) this way. And not just math, but science, since much scientific research these days is done by means of mathematics, the subjects of research often being too tiny or too huge for human instruments to do the job alone. Scientists take advantage of the remarkable power of mathematics to describe the physical world.
The sensation our seeker has upon discovering answers to the questions above is best paralleled by the sensation you had last time you completed a jig saw puzzle. You see a completed picture. Holes are filled in. There’re no pieces left over. You know the feeling. Should someone come along and suggest that your result is merely your interpretation of the data, it is hard for you to endorse that view, especially since their puzzle is still in the box. And if some learned puzzologist declares that the puzzle can't be solved and that trying is a waste of time, and everyone accepts his view [!]- well, you just shake your head in dismay. You look back at your completed puzzle. Yes, there it is. And yet people will not attempt the puzzle, although the invitation and path to do so could not be easier, because the puzzologist says "no." Instead, they gobble up the puzzologist's books on the nature of the puzzle pieces and the reasons they're no good.
Yes, suspend doubt, not make a leap of faith. And only so as to make an investigation. That is the model I recommend. And I will give an example.
We have corresponded enough for you to realize that I believe Adam and Eve were real persons. And you want to say "only a moron believes in Adam and Eve." Of course, you do not say it, out of respect for me (which I appreciate) but I'd be very surprised if it didn't cross your mind. And I understand that feeling.
When I first came across the ideas of Jehovah's Witnesses in my college years, I was absolutely floored to think I had found people who actually believed in Adam and Eve! They didn't look stupid - well, maybe a few of them, but in no greater proportion than general society. Yet all my life I had believed, and I had considered evolution as part of college biology, that only the most ignorant of the rednecks rejected the theory. A fellow from the Kingdom Hall lent me a book on evolution vs. creation, now out of print, and replaced by a superior version. I didn't like it. I thought it was poorly written and took some cheap shots. But because everything else I was learning from the Bible made so much sense, I decided to temporarily shelve the matter. Later I was able to resolve things. The evidence favoring evolution is nowhere near as compelling as its advocates would have you believe. Witness, for example, your colleague’s "proof" regarding creation. But we are emotionally conditioned to think along certain lines and we do not quickly change course, regardless of the evidence.
Now to address another matter you inquired about. You asked "please elaborate on "the [huge] potential payoff (in peace of mind)" from knowing that men (if not other animals) will live forever. For example, what does knowing that (you really know it, right?) do for your peace of mind?" Moristotle, I assure you that I do not walk around all day with an ear to ear grin. When Forrest Gump happens, it happens to me too. I have a plate full of aggravations, just like anyone else. But I like to imagine that being satisfied on the "big picture" concerns does contribute to peace of mind. For example, Viktor Frankl stated "the striving to find a meaning in one's life is the primary motivational force in man....There is nothing in the world, I venture to say, that would so effectively help one to survive even the worst conditions, [yes, he was a Holocaust survivor] as the knowledge that there is meaning in one's life." The Bible subjects discussed above, I'm sure you appreciate, are most relevant to this "striving."
Now, you must not imagine that JWs claim to know everything there is to know about God. Of course, we do not. But you don't ever know everything about anyone - even your own wife, yet that does not prevent you from cultivating genuine love and feeling absolutely confident in her companionship. Regarding God, however, it is possible and desirable to know far more than the meager scraps most people settle for. Sometimes, the scraps are so meager they amount to little more that nothing at all. As an example, here are the words of Dr William R Inge, prolific writer and one-time dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London: "All my life I have struggled to find the purpose of living. I have tried to answer three problems which always seemed to me to be fundamental: the problem of eternity; the problem of human personality; and the problem of evil. I have failed. I have solved none of them." Now, I don’t want to denigrate this fellow, who was most distinguished in his field, yet from this statement it’s hard to evade the feeling that the sum total of his spiritual investigation was zero. If I speak forcefully to you, even to the point of annoyance, it is because I see you looking for those answers in the same places that he, with much greater resources, looked for them.
And I'm not so sure what is all this talk about my "tentacles." I am just a person. We don't know each other personally. I am far away. Whether you wine and dine the next JW who visits you or run him over with your Buick, I will never know it. I am just communicator representing a position as well as I can, drawn to your blog because of its quality and the decent personality of its author. At the moment, I have time to pursue such things, and so I do. But not to the point of wearing out my welcome, I trust. I don't want to do that. So, having expressed several points dear to me, I will lay low for a while, chiming in only here and there with tidbits.
Of course, I reserve the right to partly or completely reverse this position at any time for any reason, or for none whatsoever. :)
Tom, I am, of course, familiar with heuristics. And familiar with the particular one you elaborate, the suspension of disbelief. But it hadn't occurred to me before reading your articulate comment that the theologians I alluded to who recommended "believing that they might believe" might rather simply have joined you in recommending a suspension of disbelief. I might investigate the reason for that sometime.
ReplyDeleteI commend you for the excellent—I might even say brilliant—analogy of the jigsaw puzzle. I'm still considering whether it applies to the case in hand.
You and I may interpret Frankl's philosophy of "finding meaning in one's life" differently. I guess I've thought of him as an existentialist, that is, as espousing that he (and other literal or figurative inmates of concentration camps) find their own meaning in life. As opposed, that is, to piecing together what God's purpose might be, which seems to be your take.
I choose to believe that you are right that "Regarding God...it is possible and desirable to know far more than the meager scraps most people settle for." You didn't seem to have read my most recent post ("Praise God!") when you commented. I have regained the road to that discovery, which is so intimately bound up with self-discovery.
"Thanks a lot," Tom, for saying—forcefully, no less—that you think I have fewer resources for "answering these problems" than the infamous atheist, Dr. William R. Inge. Fortunately, a person's greatest resource is his ability to open his eyes.
Of course you don't have tentacles! I tried to be very clear that I was expressing my reaction to your...what I thought were your overtures at proselytization (despite your several disavowals of that). I definitely wasn't perceiving you as someone I'd willing "wine and dine," but who says that you're not growing on me?
Dr Inge, an infamous atheist? Really? Just like Sam?
ReplyDeleteI admit, I don't know too much about him. I hastily scanned a Wikipedia entry. But he was dean of St Paul's Cathedral, for crying out loud. Why would someone not assume he believed in God? Which, btw, is another reason I like the JW organization. It is always safe to figure that people in responsible positions worship God.
To me, this only underscores the nature of searching for God amidst theologians and church leaders. By doing so, it seems that one is not so much searching for God as he is searching for the thinking of "great men" about God. It seldom leads to the same result.
And by more resources, I only meant that he was dean of the Cathedral and you're not. I would surmise that would give him an advantage in both time and access. But now I see it is dangerous to surmise anything in this regard.
Oops!
ReplyDeleteIf I weren't already comfortable with my fallibility (thank God!) I would probably be blushing visibly about now. It appears that I must have conflated Dean Inge with Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)!
Apologies to both you, Tom, and Dean Inge!
And it appears that I have no advantage over the man for presumably having an open mind!
Indeed, he must have had far greater resources than I (but possibly for the questionable advantage of my having the Internet at my fingertips? <wink>).
Thoughts occasioned by my mistake about Inge, who sounds like an interesting man. I'm sure that I've seen references to him before.
ReplyDeleteWhile Tom expressed hesitation, after my mistake, in trusting what "theologians and church leaders" might pronounce on religious matters (since they are not as trustworthy as Jehovah's Witnesses are!), I myself am rather inspired by the idiosyncracies to be found among them. They are individual human beings, after all. (Just as I am, and you are.)
Forty years ago, for example, I much admired the former Anglican bishop of Woolwich, John Robinson, for his candid book, Honest to God (1963).
To quote the Wikipedia:
"Robinson proposed abandoning the notion of a God 'out there,' existing somewhere out in the universe, just as we have abandoned already the idea of God 'up there,' the notion of the old man up in the sky. In its place, he offered us the idea of God as the depth of our being and existence. Honest to God caused a storm of controversy as the first publication by a leading churchman which asked the question
"'Now that we have rejected the ancients' view of God living in a material heaven above the actual sky, what does God's existence mean?'
"While the bulk of his ideas have become integrated with the more liberal circles of Christian thought, he is considered an extremist by some. His ideas are considered anathema by Barthian evangelicals and by those whose concept of a supernatural God supersedes other theological concerns."
Myself, I like honest rebels and can be impatient and get annoyed with unswerving allegiance to received ideas. I am impatient with "true believers."
To quote the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 on "true believer":
ReplyDelete"One who is deeply, sometimes fanatically devoted to a cause, organization, or person: 'a band of true believers bonded together against all those who did not agree with them' Theodore Draper"
Note also, that there's a new online encyclopedia. I heard about it yesterday listening to NPR. Robert Siegel was interviewing somebody who has created an online encyclopedia (Conservapedia) that he said was needed as an alternative to the wickedly liberal Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteThis guy says that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal" than the U.S. populace. Mr. Siegel of course asked him how he "measured" that.
The interviewee cited published poll statistics that said that Americans are, two to one, conservative. (Michael Moore and Al Franken, of course, dispute that.)
Then he pointed out that there are three times as many editors identified as being liberal working on the Wikipedia as there are editors identified as being conservative.
And...3 × 2 = six. Voilà!