So ‑‑ where does that leave me? Someone once, after long debate, said to me, "It looks like God wants you to be an atheist." I don't like the answers I've reached, but I seem to be stuck with them.
First,
God doesn’t want anybody to be an atheist, regardless of how long a
debate is (smile)…YOU could possibly "WANT" to be an
atheist--it has numerous points of emotional seduction associated with it in
today's western culture--but that's a separate issue than should you
(epistemically) be one…
Secondly,
judging just from this letter (and the other letters), I honestly don’t think
you have (1) dug in the 'right direction' enough, nor (2) approached the
decision with eyes-wide-open. It is also possible--although I don’t have any
actual data to go on, so it's only a cautionary consideration--that (3) your
attitude may need revision. Let me thumbnail these for you:
1.
Although you say you have read all these Christian apologists, I am not sure
you have applied critical thinking to your own position (enough or at
all). Your apparent approval of ABC's anti-apologetics writings, your apparent
approval of Randian-Objectivism, and the misunderstandings of many of the
theological and moral issues discussed above,
raise a question in my mind about how self-critical you might be
about positions YOU personally have adopted (or that skeptical friends have
'taught' you).
For illustration, take the Randian-Objectivist view…
As you are very much aware yourself, Objectivism is
not taken seriously by mainstream philosophical scholarship--but do you know
why? Do you know what the strongest objections (by philosophers--not by the
chat-room "laity") are? I briefly looked for discussions of it in the
scholarly literature and could find NO discussion of it (just like we would
find no discussion of Piso-conspiracies or Christ-as-only-myth in serious
Classics and History departments, either), nor any citations of, or references
to, the authors you mentioned. I then searched the web trying to find SOME
comments on it by 'real', academic and published scholars in philosophy, and
the pages I found highlighted a number of methodological and substantive
errors. I personally cannot form an opinion this quickly as to why it is
not taken seriously, but that is beside the point here--do YOU know, in detail,
the strongest objections to YOUR position? Can you mount an attack against your
belief that would be credible to these philosophers--so that they would say
that you represented their position fairly?
Notice that this is NOT a question of 'can you
defend Objectivism'--it is a question of 'can you offer a credible REFUTATION
of it' also? Then, and only then, can you truly have even the OPTION of making
a balanced and two-sided decision about what you should believe. [I
should point out, though, that this would only allow you an OPTION of
making a correct choice--your actual choice might be made on the basis of OTHER
factors altogether (e.g., "all my friends are O's", "it allows
me to appeal to things I don’t have to defend", "I don’t want to have
to admit I was 'wrong' to my social circle", and other possible
less-than-logical motives). But this critical thinking exercise would go a long
way in 'forcing you' to at least see 'both sides' more clearly.] This is a
rhetorical exercise for you, friend--I wouldn't be able to assess your arguments
one way or the other. I don’t know the first thing about it now, and I stopped
my daily chanting of the "I swear by my life and by my love of it, that I
will never live for the sake of…" creed some 35 years ago…but your heart
would be able to…and the way you deal with the 'opposing sides' of the data
will be 'noted' by your heart…remember, do not make decisions about which your
heart would "rise up and testify against" your honesty and
belief-choices…
Likewise for the Christian and skeptic question. You
find ABC's arguments persuasive--can you rip them apart, also? Can you find the
gaping holes in his arguments? Can you show where his reasoning is highly
speculative, where his data weightings are questionable, where his
counter-examples are irrelevant, where his background material is
unrepresentative of the history and culture of the day? Can you find the
passages where his 'bias' and 'bitterness' are most likely to be 'guiding' the
argument? Can you find the examples where the generalization or conclusion
would require more rigorous thinking before being stated so strongly? Can you
find the conclusions that should be 'softened' in scholarly fashion
("the data suggests", "it could not be proven, but could
certainly be accepted as plausible", etc), but are not? Can you find the
places where more recent data/discoveries and conclusions of modern scholarship
should be incorporated into the results, but are not?
But more importantly, can you do the same to YOUR
positions, friend?
For example, could YOU have written MY response
to your letter(s) YOURSELF? Think about it--could you have 'answered
yourself' in the same way I have tried to? Or, if you wrote up your explanation
of the events/texts/results/impacts surrounding Jesus and the disciples in the
1st century AD, could you also know where ALL your 'gaping holes' were?
Believe me, I have to do this for EVERY article on the Tank! Before I had the Tank, I posted a couple of 'answers to skeptics' to a national bulletin board and I got my face ripped off--legitimately! I don't often make the same mistake anymore…And, I have posted answers that I quickly had to take down, since my conscience (or my Lord) wouldn't 'let me rest' about what I had written...I try to consider every angle to every question, to make sure (a) I don’t mislead people; (b) don’t get my face ripped off again for stupid mistakes; (c) can sleep with my conscience and intellectual integrity at night; (d) don’t embarrass my beautiful God by negligence, obduracy, or insensitivity; (e) continually grow and learn; and (f) don’t have to re-open the question for a long time…
I know the intellectual challenges to the Christian
worldview…I have skeptic friends who ask me on occasion to proof-read their
writings, and I try to point out omissions, inaccuracies, misunderstandings,
and 'preferred style' (a good ole NIH smile),
as well as the 'soft spots' and "prime vulnerabilities"
in their opponent's (generally Christian, but not always) position. They could
testify that I am cognizant and honest about the 'soft spots' in the
traditional Christian worldview…The God of Truth is not afraid of data and
honesty…but will hold each of us accountable for how we responded to
such data…
In your case, I recommend you don’t let this rest…I
recommend that you IMMEDIATELY start surfacing/summarizing the data, logic,
experiences, statistics, philosophical arguments that would argue against YOUR
arguments. (It is always so much easier to attack someone else's position, than
to create and defend your own.) Instead of wasting many more time making lists
of 'why Christian arguments are wrong' , start on a list of 'why MY arguments
are wrong'…[Or you can start with someone else's statement of position--as long
as it represents YOUR position, and you can 'take it personally' when you
'attack it'…the emotional component just might need to be there.]
And if you cannot come up with any 'weaknesses'
(real ones) in your position, then I just might have to file you away with
those skeptics who see no arguments FOR the faith, and those believers who see
no arguments AGAINST the faith…
2.
The decision approach.
Here I want to make some observations about
methodology, for you to consider when thinking through your decision what to
believe--regardless of what the content is:
First, be sure you recognize subjectivity when it
is present (as it ALWAYS is). You--like me--use expressions like "don't
seem convincing to me", "seem specious", "weak
arguments" etc. Just recognize that these evaluations have a high degree
of personal-preference, subjectivity, and 'disguised subjectivity' from social
and cultural assumptions. [One anthropologist pointed out that 'objectivity'
was simply "socially tutored subjectivity". Although this is probably
true, not all 'social tutoring' is un-tethered to commitments to essential
truth.]
So, when rejecting a pro-Christian argument with the
phrase 'seems unconvincing', don't stop there--ask yourself "why
not?", "what SPECIFICALLY in the argument is wrong or questionable?
And WHY is that questionable or wrong?", and "what changes could be
made to the argument to make it more convincing?" and the such like. Do
not stop merely at a level-one "I don’t buy it"--ask yourself the
hard detail-question: "what specifically is wrong with it…". Identify
it, make it explicit (and then think about where YOU might make the same
mistake in YOUR argumentation), and finally ask 'under what conditions MIGHT it
actually be correct?"
Secondly, you need to be really aware that most
high-level beliefs have both a voluntary and an involuntary
component. Sometimes, data can be so 'persuasive' to our senses (e.g.,
geocentrism) that we have to 'work hard at' visualizing and accepting another
view (e.g. heliocentrism). Our deepest intuitions may argue against the theory
we are evaluating (e.g., heliocentrism, general relativity, quantum
indeterminacy), but after a while we may be forced to decide to concede
to the more accurate view (without that 'feeling of intuitive confidence'). We
have to make a voluntary step to assent to some view (or worldview, as was also
implied in the three examples, btw). This is very common stuff--and the subject
of much of the philosophy of science for the last 40 years--so it's no surprise
that it will show up here as well.
However, in matters of 'religion'--dealing with
foundational values and transcendental expectations--the stakes can be much
higher, and the issue of 'attitude' or 'self-interest' may be an active
'adversary' to us in trying to make good choices here.
The history of science, psychology, and politics are
adequate witness to the massive power of the human mind (and the
human-in-groups) ability to 'rationalize' the most questionable and/or
maleficent choices…We should likewise be "wary of ourselves" in this
endeavor. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."…
The biblical data, of course, is completely
consistent with our commonplace observations of human 'irrationality':
·
People
can know the truth yet suppress it until they are no longer aware of it (Rom 1)
·
People
can deliberately forget things (2 Pet 3.5)
·
People
can choose to NOT love truth (2 Th 2.10)
·
People
can choose only beliefs which please them (too numerous to list)
·
People
can reject outright miracles, such as resurrection (Luke 16 and John 12.9: Meanwhile
a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because
of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to kill
Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of
him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.
)
·
People
can choose to deliberately propagate deception (deceivers, guile)
·
People
can lose the ability and even willingness to perceive truth--especially
spiritual truth--by repeated rejection, stubbornness, and insensitivity ( They
are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because
of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. [1
Cor 4.18] and For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear
with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. [Acts 28.27])
And these are done both by believers and
non-believers. Not only do believers sometimes do the 'wishful thinking' thing,
but non-believers might do the 'choose only beliefs that do not threaten my
sense of self-power or superiority'. In this area of 'personal desires', one
must be very eyes-wide-open about motivations.
By themselves--it is important to note--motivations
to believe something do not constitute reasons to reject someone's argument.
For example, I want to believe that God is good-hearted, but that doesn't give
anyone a right to accuse my arguments for that position as not being
'objective' (or of being 'biased'). They would have to demonstrate from my
argument WHERE my 'bias' specifically influenced my choices of data, my
acceptance of explanatory options, and my weighting of the different data
points. I could not be simply dismissed by an outsider without some
evidence that my predispositions unduly influenced my reasoning process. [cf.
the historiography book by historian Thomas Haskell: Objectivity is Not
Neutrality: Explanatory Schemes in History]
However--and this is the point here, friend--I need
to ask this question about my own arguments. I need to know that I have
not taken the 'easy road' in an argument, or given improper benefit of the
doubt to a position, or accepted questionable (by MY standards!) assumptions
therein. My heart KNOWS this and my conscience is aware of these influences
while they are still explicit and formative in my thinking process. [If I don’t
deal with them early, however, they will become unconscious 'habits of mind'
and be much more difficult to surface, recognize, and correct.]
In the biblical worldview, intellectual
integrity--in spite of our personal desires--will be manifested when we stand
before God: Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the
Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will
expose the motives of men’s hearts. (1 Cor 4.5).
" Judaism repeatedly stressed that God knew the hearts of all
people (cf. Jer 29:23); some texts even call him “Searcher of Hearts.” As one
Jewish wisdom writer expressed it, “Happy is the one whose soul does not accuse
him” (Ecclus 14:2)." [BBC]
This was not peculiarly Jewish notion, but was also
known in ancient Egypt:
"When the heart, called the persons ka, or double, stands
in at judgment, it is also capable of testifying negatively, accusing its
owner. Thus chapter 30 [note: in the Book of the Dead], actually a spell to be
enclosed in the coffin, intended to aid the person through his ordeal, entreats
the heart: 'Rise not up as witness against me'" [HI:FH:13]
Although there is no ultimate accountability in the
skeptical worldview for this, intellectual integrity is generally held in high
value, so even in that perspective it is important (or at least valued) to
'search your heart' about this issue. At a practical level, this means that
even moral and aesthetic notions ("do I like its morality?", and
"do I like its beauty?") are secondary considerations to
"is it true"…Hopefully, the True will also be the Good, and the
Beautiful, but the 'avoid living in an invented fantasyland' ethic generally
forces us to consider reality-issues FIRST.
Third, remember that psychological confidence and
certainty are NOT directly related to truth-status. Our feelings of
confidence can vary with what we ate for supper last night, or a fight with a
friend, or bio-chemical depression from the last project at the office. It is
sometimes helpful to 'chart' these, though, similar to the way that industry
forecasting firms will assign subjective probabilities to 'strategic
predictions'. In the computer industry, for example, the Gartner Group will
make statements about some future possible technology scenario and then assign
it a 'confidence level' from between 1 and 10.
You might try something like that on the various
propositions--both pro and con--within any argument you are analyzing. This is,
of course, close to the suggestion to assess WHY you find something
'unconvincing' or 'convincing', since these two terms have a psychological
component also.
The goal of this step is to help you (a) identify
these 'subjective' elements in your decision making process; and (b) identify
which conclusions or anti-conclusions need more thinking or investigation.
The question is not "ARE you confident
that your beliefs adequately explain why the apostles, who claimed to see post-resurrection
appearances of Jesus, did not manifest any OTHER symptoms of psychosis or post-mortem
trauma?" but "HOW confident are you that your beliefs
adequately explain…?" And then, why did you answer the 'how confident'
question at that confidence level?
Fourth, be SURE not to assume that your assumptions
are anything more than just that--just "working" assumptions. Half of
our difficulty in reasoning comes from not recognizing where we are making
assumptions, and that they are indeed only assumptions (sometime a
euphemism for 'speculations'…). In your case, you have made various assumptions
about 'hard wiring' of values, desire to avoid extinction, etc….Be sure you
recognize that these are ONLY assumptions and not proven. You cannot therefore
'use them' as explanatory devices with ANY level of warrant. (They would have
to be supported by adequate evidence or logic BEFORE you can introduce them as
evidence in another argument.)
For example, you countered some argument that 'your
holding to morals is evidence of transcendental morals' with an argument
something like 'no, I believe they are simply hardwired in'. This
counter-argument is an assumption--a 'belief' that would need some kind of real
evidence BEFORE you could use it as evidence itself in an
argument. You need to make VERY sure that any argument you use to DISMISS some
apologetic point is more than just an assumption. Otherwise, your
conclusion is no more that simple assumption/presumption also. (The weak link
in the chain thing--gossamer premises lead to gossamer conclusions.)
Fifth, recognize the normal existence of doubt. In
keeping with the reality of 'variable' confidence levels, so too will be the
reality of doubt--no matter what worldviews we adopt. (The only worldview that
can be free of legitimate and/or psychological doubt is that of the
ostrich...). There will always be outstanding questions, and more questions
behind those. The only way to deal with these is to prioritize your
investigations around core, central, or most-implicative questions. Research
the Big Ones first--for example, is the resurrection the best (not 'perfect')
explanation for the data of the NT, the early church, the current experiences
of the believer. If you end up believing this, then objections such as
"the resurrection is a contradictory philosophical and anthropological
concept and therefore cannot even be discussed/analyzed, much less believed to
have actually happened" become moot.
So, recognize that when you finally accept Jesus,
you will get the growing psychological experiences of certainty (as believers
testify), but you will still have intermittent doubts about various and sundry
things. It is important to note, though, that these 'doubts' will most of the
time be less than your 'confidence/certainty level' in the reality of
the biblical God, in His good-heartedness to you, and in His loyal involvement
in your life and welfare. (There are times, however, when His experiential
reality may be 'muted' to you, to test your commitment to Him--as He did with
Hezekiah in 2 Chrn 32:31. But these are exceptionally rare, and generally after
significant masses/periods of experience have been had.) Often, these doubts
will be used of God to direct your study, prayer life, and helping others.
The biblical message speaks of the believer's
certainty (using the image of an internal "witness"), but this certainty
is one that can only be pointed to, when discussing it with others:
"Now some Christian believers might be troubled by the notion that one's apologetic case for Christianity yields only probability rather than certainty. But the fact that Christianity can only be shown to be probably true need not be troubling when two things are kept in mind: first, that we attain no more than probability with respect to almost everything we infer (for example, that smoking contributes to lung cancer or that it is safe to cross the street) without detriment to the depth of our conviction and that even our non-inferred, basic beliefs may not be held with any sort of absolute certainty (for example, my memory belief that I had waffles for breakfast on Monday); and second, that even if we can only show Christianity to be probably true, nevertheless we can on the basis of the Spirit's witness know Christianity to be true with a deep assurance that far outstrips what the evidence in our particular situation might support (think analogously of the person convinced of his innocence even though all the evidence stands against him). To demand logically demonstrative proofs as a pre-condition for making a religious commitment is therefore just being unreasonable. [W. L. Craig, Reasonable Faith]
It is a frustration of the believer to not be able
to 'impart' this overwhelming assurance to others in search for it, but the
same is true of winetasters, mountain climbers, mystics, and astronauts trying
to describe the experiential content of their semi-ecstatic experiences. The
believer can only point you to the "probabilities" (between 51% and
99%), and then urge you to decide to accept that conclusion on the basis of
non-blind faith--belief that is warranted, but not inescapable.
Over the years it has dawned on me why most choices
are 'probabilistic' in nature--to require some level of 'personal choice' and
commitment to it, to force us to 'engage' with 'real life'. When I am confronted with the need to
select a course of action (including the 'act of believing') and in that
specific case the data relevant to a choice is 85% 'for' and 15% 'against',
I am forced to make a personal choice. My personal choice reveals many
things about me. It might show how 'honest' I was, especially if the choice was
something I didn't want or like. It might show how 'humble' I was, if the
choice would reverse my previous conclusions about the matter. It might show
how 'integrity-oriented' I was, if the choice would be likely to prompt
ridicule, censure, and even persecution from my social group. It might show how
'brave' I was, if I had to go outside my 'comfort zone' of my past and into
areas in which I had little experience.
It might even show how 'teachable' or 'open-minded' I was, if I had to
depend on the testimony of others like myself.
Your choices in the past have done this--both
shaping and 'displaying' your character. And your choices, as your read this
and think about it, will do the same. And the choices you make, from
here on, will likewise reveal your heart, and change your heart.
Just be sure you recognize the role of personal
choice in this matter…It is NOT a matter of saying the 'data made me do it',
and then believing you are 'off the hook'! The data only offers you a set of
choices, with some data offering this one and other data offering a different
one…
This doesn’t make it a free-for-all, though. DATA is
still required to 'offer' a choice, and is still required to 'sort, rank, and
weight' the choices. Without SOME evidence, an option should not even be
considered. That Jesus turned into a butterfly and flew out of the tomb as they
were rolling the stone over the mouth of the cave to close it--as an
explanation of the Empty Tomb--is not an option to consider. There is simply no
'data' to support such an 'explanation'.
Data, in a best case scenario, sifts through the
possible options, reduces those to the plausible ones, rank orders them based
on probabilities and historical connectedness (i.e., how well the historical
'situation' is explained by the various options), and then "presents"
them to you. Using this metaphor, data would hand you 2 file folders--one
marked "85% confidence" and one marked "15%
confidence"--and then it would sit down and see how you responded and how
you chose…
So, objectivity NEVER precludes subjectivity--it
merely constrains it (hopefully!) and empowers it for engagement in living.
Sixth, focus on the "What" and NOT on
the "How" of this stuff. The portrait of the heart and character of
Jesus, and His claims about His love and work for you, is the WHAT that you
need to spend your time and attention on. Trying to understand the 'how' (e.g.
"mechanics") of the resurrection, miracles, healings, exorcisms,
bearing the consequences of our moral failures on the Cross, foreknowledge of
future events, etc. will get you sidetracked into less-central (and less
'explained' by God) areas of experience. Keep your evaluation on the "That
it happened" and "What happened" issues, for these are the ones that
must be addressed in establishing a relationship with God.
And even on the 'what happened?' issues, you need to
make sure you only focus on basics, and not get lost in over-precision. For
example, it is not important to establish a detailed chronology of the last
week of Jesus' earthly life, BEFORE accepting as true that He had a Last
Supper, went through various trials, and was crucified before the Sabbath
began…Do not let yourself get yourself off-track here. The
central issue that has to be addressed--before you can truly experience the
reality and confidence and peace you are looking for and that God is holding in
store for you--is the person and work of the loving Lord…what do you believe
about Him?
Seventh, you need to made sure you realize the
implications of your search or heuristic model. The biblical view is that God
is a person, and therefore has the self-freedom to disclose/reveal Himself or
not. This is called a personal-disclosure model, in which data about a person's
character is gathered from disclosures they choose to make, instead of
perceptual inferences an observer might make from simply watching them. For
example, observational models might yield some information that the person is
not conscious of (e.g. nervous mannerisms), but this type of data is vastly
dwarfed by the amount of data that can ONLY be learned from personal
disclosure (e.g. the history, plans, and values of the person).
You currently seem to be working on an 'observer' or
'perception' model, in which you are looking for evidence of God's existence,
without actually 'asking' for disclosure or not. I might be mistaken about
this--you might already be praying the "God, if you're there, please show
me and change/enable me to be able to see" prayer. But, if the biblical
model of a conscious and good-hearted God is true, then His disclosure will
likely be much more vivid, dense, and personal-content oriented. It would
likely be like the disclosure in the portrait, teachings, actions, and example
of Jesus…If/when you decide to adopt a personal-disclosure model for finding
evidence for God, and begin the "if/show/enable" prayer, then your
best "chance" of getting some level of psychological 'confirmation'
will be in your encounter with the Lord Jesus of the New Testament. In a
disclosure model, one moves to the disclosure media (i.e., symbolic and
personal communication streams) as opposed to non-linguistic data such as
NDE's.
3. To play it safe, you may need to check yourself for an 'attitude revision' need…
It's not my place to "size you up", nor do
I have enough information about you, friend, in these letters to even suggest
this as a problem, but I would still encourage you (or anyone) do a
self-examination of attitude about your approach.
Certain word-choices and argument-patterns and even
sub-themes in your letters have historically been correlated (in my
history of interactions with other people) with attitudes of arrogance
and superiority in other people. I have seen 'up close' enough arrogant
people--both believers and skeptics--to have noticed a correlation/connection
between their arrogance and certain things they say, arguments they use, word
choices, and assumptions. You share some of these latter themes
and word choices with them, so it's strictly on the basis of my prior experience
with others (and NOT this current experience with you) that I submit this for your consideration.
In fact, in our few email exchanges I have seen very
little that would suggest this could be an issue for you, and on the contrary I
have seen 'evidence' that would suggest otherwise. But, since
pride/elitism/arrogance issues are typically a question of "How much do I
have, and to what extent does it block me from accepting truth?" instead
of "do I have it or not?", I think it would be wise to at least
comment on this--in case you find yourself concerned about this typically
'blind-spot' type of perceptual block…
I personally do not know of anything as effective at 'keeping God away' as arrogance, elitism, or superiority attitudes. These are fundamental blocks to ALL real personal relationships of warmth, intimacy, and community--with humans or with the Lord.
Arrogance creates 'interpersonal distance' between
the Ego and the Other. Personal and community relationships depend on
reciprocity, mutual respect, leveraging someone else's wisdom (admitting it to
be 'better' or at least more useful than yours, for a given situation),
appreciation, and honesty about one's limitations and needs. Arrogance, and
selfish ambition, are fundamentally
destructive to these elemental aspects of human existence. Arrogant elitism and
'holier than thou' attitudes are the grounds for so many of the biblical
'judgments'. The "I am better, and therefore more worthy of pleasure and
goods and life and happiness than you" attitudes are the basis of war,
racism and bigotry, oppression, crimes of violence, dishonesty/fraud, social
injustice, theft, sexual crimes of rape and abuse, and soulless greed. Even the
'I am smarter than you, so I don’t have to take you seriously' attitudes create
walls between discussants and students, and can block the exchange of
information and softening/widening of more narrow viewpoints (on both sides).
Arrogance has 'silenced' many, many Christian
experiences and lives in my opinion. I have seen "I-guess-they-were"
believers 'puffed up' by theological knowledge, by legalistic and separatist
'holiness', by 'better than most' asceticism, by fundamentalist and pharisaical
'frenzy of correctness', by exalted experience of 'spectacular' miraculous
experiences, even by successful ministries--and they end up calling themselves
"ex-Christians" and explaining that God didn’t answer their requests
for help because He wasn’t actually there to begin with…I have seen skeptics so
superior that not a scrap of light could penetrate the darkness…I have
personally fallen into (or 'jumped into', is more like it I suppose) pits of
pride that blinded me to some character flaw or error in perspective…
Sometimes the only way to recover from the
distance/disharmony created is an "I'm sorry--I apologize", "I
was mistaken", "you DO know more about this than I do", "I
might be mistaken, since I have less data to work with than you", or
"I did wrong"…
The "cure" to arrogance is not in
groveling, or false self-deprecation, but in honesty about one's self. It comes
from knowing--and living consistently with that knowledge--who one is, what
strengths and weaknesses they have, and what contribution they have to make to
community.
In the biblical worldview, honestly starts with
recognition of two basic facts: we are derivative beings, dependent on God; and
we are social beings, interdependent with/on other people.
The first fact means that we are in a
less "privileged" epistemic position that God (i.e., He has much
greater knowledge, wisdom, and insight about the universe and ourselves than we
do--but He is willing to share operationally useful subsets of that information
with us, for our good). This creates a presumption that when we disagree with
Him (assuming we understand His position on something), it is more likely to be
US who are mistaken, than Him…
It also implies that we can leverage God's
knowledge, by paying attention to His directives concerning method of learning
(e.g., don't try to deal unaided with 'raw' transcendent experiences),
presuppositions of learning (e.g., creation as a cohesive and rationally
unified whole--the principle that launched and grounded modern science,
historically speaking), goals of learning (building up one another--a community
wellness goal, plus the pleasure and appreciation associated with discovering
of beauty and elegance built-into the universe), and limits of learning (e.g.,
the specific detailed causes behind most human events).
Just as humility (nothing more than honesty, for a
derivative being of course) was the first-step in voicing our 'disagreement'
with God about moral repugnancies, so too it will be in 'questions' or
'disagreements' with God about epistemic matters. The fact that I cannot
understand the mechanics of how a
spirit can speak to a human soul through dreams and trancelike states, does
not in any way 'negate' the fact that: (a) He claims to have done this in
the bible in numerous occasions; and (b) cultural anthropology documents this
experience in the vast majority of modern and ancient cultures. [This presupposes, of course, that I can
actually determine the content of His claims, upon which to practice said
humility. ]
The second fact means that we are both
contributors to, and recipients of, community knowledge. For
example, the vast majority of facts and thinking 'procedures' (and assumptions
about life and the universe) we know were taught us (or modeled before us) by
others. The amount of individually-generated 'new' knowledge we possess
individually is almost trivial; but, when we contribute this small amount of
insight or knowledge into the community 'pool', the result is organic growth in
overall human knowledge. This creates the need for appropriate responses to
community-shared knowledge, including humility to others with better knowledge
in some areas than us, respect for everyone--since all have SOMETHING to
contribute, 'discerning' trust or an open-mindedness toward the testimony of
contributing and model community-members, and thankfulness and appreciation to
those who have helped us in individual ways.
Although a cordial skepticism is biblically enjoined
upon us, a wholesale 'guilty until proven innocent' assumption is as equally
fallacious as is "I believe everything"…it is the middle ground
that we seek.
Imagine this
kind of conversation with the Apostle Peter, back in Acts 6:
(An adult Glenn enters, stage right, Apostles are helping serve food to the needy of Jerusalem at tables set up in an area around the Temple)
Glenn? Hey, Glenn--over here! It's me, Peter…
Hey, man, what are you doing? I haven’t seen you in a couple of years--
I've been traveling in Italy and surroundings for a while…last I saw you, you
were running a thriving fishing business up in Galilee
You haven’t heard about what's been going on here?!
Man, have I got a story and some good news for you! (Peter directs two fellows
to bring in the next food basket, just arriving from another Jewish priest).
The short version is "God has visited His people"--finally! The
Messiah appeared, and he was so much more than we expected! He blew us away
with His teachings, His love, His integrity, His compassion, and to top it all
off--He didn’t kiss up to the religious leaders! Of course, they ram-rodded a
crucifixion through Pilate and killed the Prince of Life, but --just as
promised--God raised Him from the dead! It was incredible! And now, He is Lord
of history and we all are trying to let everybody know so everybody can have a
part in the New Future He will be ushering in (as soon as we get the message out
to everybody). Glenn, you GOTTA join us in this--this is finally the REAL
thing! This was finally something different and from God himself--this messiah
wasn’t some 'out in the wilderness weirdo' or some Emperor-wannabee zealot…You
should have seen Him weep over Jerusalem--I never realized how much God cared
for us stubborn, stiff-necked people before that…This was the One, come join
us!
Whoa, whoa, whoa Peter…you musta have fallen out the boat one too many
times, friend…people don't rise from the dead, last time I checked…you KNOW I
can't believe a 'fish story' like that, buddy!
But it's true, man, and he supplied us with
'extraordinary evidence' to prove it to us: we all (he gestures to the people
helping put the food out) saw him after He rose! It took us a while to
"get it" (if you knew the history, glenn, you would say your
customary 'what ELSE is new, peter?!"), because we were so skeptical, but
finally we were just overwhelmed by the experiences. We didn’t believe the
women, but they were right. Thomas didn’t believe us, but we were right. Every
time we began to doubt again, He would appear again! It's like He knew how slow
we were…
Oh--post-resurrection appearances, right? I get it now…You are just
creating these stories of 'divine
appearances and signs' to honor you dead leader, like they teach students to do
for Greco-Roman rulers, like Alexander and Augustus, right?
Gross, no! Why in the world would we want to drag
the Pure One down to the level of those guys! He consistently contrasted His
Servant-Leadership with their pompous, conquest-oriented, self-aggrandizing,
and elitist agendas. The LAST THING He would want us to do is 'make up stories'
to make Him look like a competing Emperor! These were real events,
Glenn…believe me!
[Glenn rubs his chin, considering this] Good
point--nobody likes an Emperor…But I would assume, in your efforts to reach and
help the common person, that you DID sorta make up a few miracle stories to
make Jesus look a little like those traveling miracle-workers? That would
probably expand your 'influence', wouldn’t it? You DID make up some good 'copy
cat' miracles, I hope…
Are you kidding? What do I look like to you--A
GENTILE?! Jesus belongs to us Jews, and his miracles were related to the
Tanaak/OT promises--not those fame-hungry mendicants! Besides, we are trying to
reach the Jews here, about the Son of David. If we make up miracles to make
Jesus look like one of those Hellenistic divine-guys, do you know how fast the
Jews would drop us?--like a hot matzo ball! No, not only did he NOT do stupid
stuff like most of those dudes, but it would really impact our ability to help
our countrymen find the true Messiah and find the freedom of heart they long
for. He really DID these things, glenn…don’t you believe me?
[Glenn rubs his chin, considering this, and looking
a bit more confused] Hmmm…I see your point about the Gentile-Jew problem…So,
instead, I assume you invented Rabbi-type stories to make Jesus look like those
"Charismatic Jewish Holy Men"? Your making Jesus look sorta like a
kosher miracle man, eh?
[Peter looks a little exasperated, and shakes his
head] Huh? The only 'charismatic holy men' WE Jews have are a couple of one-miracle-wonder rain-making guys…and
that’s the only major miracle Jesus DIDN’T do…He seemed to be more interested
in stopping the reign of evil in our hearts, than in making rain for the
earth…No, he was DEFINITELY different from those guys too…But you're forgetting
that I am talking about a BIG miracle here--His own resurrection--By himself,
mind you--NO ONE raised Him from the dead, except himself! Think about that
one--NO ONE ever has claimed to be able to do that in advance, much less pulled
it off physically, and then rubbed it in our faces!!!!
Peter! I refuse to accept that a miracle occurred here, in spite of
your testimony. People see ghosts all the time back in Italy…and especially
after somebody they love dies…you just want to believe it so hard, your body
just generates these 'visions' of your friend and leader…isn’t that what
probably happened, when you think about it?
Not even close, Glenn…This 'ghost' sat down and ate
with us--as a group! He even cooked one of the meals himself for us! Believe
me, we have vivid imaginations (except perhaps Matthew the tax-collector guy
over there…[laffs, along with Matthew who has heard the remark]), but our
imaginations are not 'calorically vivid'! We all saw the same thing,
multiple times, in different settings, and in different moods. Almost NONE of
the appearances were to individuals all alone. He taught us stuff. We touched
Him, for goodness sake! …Glenn, you know me--one doesn’t run a successful
commercial fishing business, in the metropolitan area, without being HIGHLY
skeptical of people, deals, and credit…You know me--I just don't bite at every fishing
line thrown to me…This was real--just like we had been promised in the
scriptures and by Jesus as He walked around in our midst for three years.
This is too hard to believe, Peter--you guys must have finally gone
insane from the trauma and stress.
Insane?! I cannot believe you would accuse me of
that, Glenn. Do I look insane to you?! Here I am, with my buddies,
administering compassionate and practical relief to needy people, managing to
schedule teaching times and group prayer, speaking plainly and persuasively to
priests and people alike. All of us here no doubt seem a little different
because of our joy, peace, and freedom from fear of death, but do any of us
really look crazy to you? Or our lives less-than-sane? Come on, glenn, you're
getting a little strange yourself with that accusation…Do we act and speak and
live in public like the Kooks and Quacks we get through here all the time?
Surely you see a qualitative difference in our lives and even the stories I
have been telling you about for the last few minutes…
Hmm, no, I guess you really DON’T look insane, but since I cannot
accept that this really happened, I still cannot believe you…if you're not
deluded, then you must be making this all up for some reason…I guess you got
tired of fishing, and wanted to get on the 'religious dole' I guess…
(Something seems to 'dawn' on Glenn's face, and he
leans over and whispers into Peter's ear: "Oh…I get it! I've got
to hand it to you…that's a pretty convincing story--great scam! Brilliantly
clever, man! There's a guy in Rome with an embalmed Centaur, raking the money
in, but that's nothing compared to what you can make in the religious racket, I
hear…I knew you guys were clever businessmen (wasn’t John even the official
fish vendor for the High Priest?), but this scam beats even some of the
chain-scroll scams I saw in Sicily! How much money are you guys pulling in off
this deal?")
Oh, glenn (sigh)…you still don’t get it, do you…we
don't get ANYTHING from this! [Pauses, reflectively] Okay, I lied--we DO get
BEATINGS and THREATS and are ostracized from various community functions. Oh,
and I forgot, we also get to live in fear of the priests or Pharisees deciding
to ask Herod or Pilate to kill us like they did Jesus…Since one governor
beheaded John the Baptist a while back--oh, you didn’t hear about that?--we
figure either James, John, or me are next to go…So, if "pulling
in" includes loss of job, constant threats and fear, having to work our
fingers to the bone in relief and teaching work, having books about Jesus being
written--with a whole lot of 'unflattering' personal stuff about US thrown in
(Guess who gets called 'Satan' in one of the more vivid episodes!), occasional
beatings and imprisonments, probable exile soon, probably death and martyrdom,
ridicule by the rulers, and that kind of stuff, then we are really doing well!
But if you're talking about money, all of that goes to the poor (like these
precious widows and orphans), and if you're talking about luxury, nobody seems
to 'donate' any of that…and if you're talking about "fame"--as in
being beaten in public and soon to be appearing on 'Most Wanted' lists, then we
get our fair share of that…but "fame" and one denarius will buy you a
one-denarius cup of coffee, I hear…NO, actually we are doing this because we
saw Him--He taught us how to love, He died for us out of love, He showed
himself to us alive before going back to heaven--out of love, and we love Him
now and we love one another now…and we have never been more honest, more sane, more free, more
'together', and less 'scam-y' than we are today…Maybe we used to be the
'ghosts', and now we are finally real and alive…
(Peter shakes his head sadly, with a puzzled, almost
hurt look on his face) Glenn, in the few minutes we have been talking here, you
have accused me (and OUR trusted mutual friends, remember!) of being more
confused than ordinary humans about our own sensations and experiences--as
individuals and as a group, you have accused us of being insane, and finally
accused us of being despicable crooks. And WE have not given you a single
reason by our behavior and demeanor to do so…you are basing all your
condemnations of us, based on peripheral factors unrelated to us and to our
actual situations. We have all seen the pathologically credulous, but not the
majority of people are such. We have all seen lunatics, but most people are not
such. We have all been taken in by charlatans, but most people are not such.
Why would you apply such minority faults to us here, who manifest none of the other symptoms, and have none of
the 'inducements' of such people? Why are we guilty--because of others--until
proven innocent, and why is even innocence impossible for us to attain with
you--because of the others' false-ones again?! Why would you let the falsehoods
of other rob YOU of accepting the real truth, when you have finally found it?
(Glenn shakes his head sadly) Because Kooks and
Quacks are everywhere--there have been tons of sightings of 'resurrected
leaders'--why would yours be any different?
Glenn, think about what I have said--multiple
people, multiple senses, multiple settings, corroborative experience, material
body, food consumption, handling cooking gear--where have you EVER heard any
story like this, with this much data?
-to ONE guy, no groups, no contact, came from
heaven…
-in a night vision, alone, once…no groups, no
contact, 'gliding down from heaven'?
-one uncertain vision, to Scipio alone, no material
contact
-nope, went straight to heaven--didn’t even actually die, much less was seen in between the two!
There's just nothing like this, friend--the amount
of extraordinary evidence is specifically to help us finally realize that God
really DID break into history to rescue and salvage and free us!
Why is your heart suddenly so closed against hearing
our honest testimony? What has happened to your heart, which used to be open to
learning? You were always cautious--like us all--but when truth presented
itself, no matter from what source--you delighted in truth…we learned a lot
from one another growing up…what happened to you?
I don’t know (shaking his head)…somewhere along the way, I stopped
trusting all those people who helped me get to where I am today--and started
trusting only myself…even though most of what I know came from other
people…doesn't make a lot of sense, I guess, does it?
Nah, it doesn’t…although I myself tried that before,
and actually tried lecturing the Messiah on how to act a couple of
times…ouch…not really proud of that story…but only trusting yourself closes so
many doors to beauty and warmth and new vistas--plus, if you have to do ALL the
work yourself, it's gonna get very, very tiring…and without ANY help, I suspect
you won't even be able to find out very much at all about life, yourself,
freedom, post-mortem experiences and such…what a lonely and wearisome way to
walk, glenn…no wonder you look so burdened…
Hey, I have an idea…why don't you think about one of
the precious promises Jesus made to us when he was on earth--maybe you'll find
a reason to trust HIM now because of how it reads:
"Come to me, all you who are weary
and burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
The point of this illustration is that we need to
make sure we are authentically human when we deal with testimony. We neither
need to be irresponsibly gullible, nor close-minded and insulting to others…Our
arrogance toward others may lead to "speculative cynicism"…Our hearts
must be open and humble and learning-enabled, or we NEVER will be able to see
God and His whispers of love and calm…
I cannot urge you enough to make dead sure
this is NOT a barrier to finding what you seek, friend…and to do a pride-check
frequently in this process…
This is a difficult area to assess, though, and I am
having difficulty developing suggestions for you. A couple come to mind, but
some involve more work than others:
1. The first thing I recommend you do is get a copy
of BOTH The Singer (Calvin Miller) and The Beggar King (Dan
Hamilton). The former is in print, but the second is not. Both are
allegory-type books, each taking no more than an afternoon to read. Your task
here is to read the books and check your heart to see if you feel morally
superior to the portraits of our Lord gleaned from the books. If you find
yourself continually disagreeing with His choices and values, then you probably
have an arrogance problem that will stop you from finding God's truth.
2. Another kind of thought-experiment would be to
reflect upon the authority of the Creator over you. Even with our relative
independence of choice and experience, any Creator could have some
kind of authority over us, and would certainly have at least some
freedom in what he/she/it/they did to/with us (especially if we were placed in
community contexts with obligations to be cooperative, reasonable, non-destructive,
etc.). God's freedom would look like 'authority' to us, and might prompt
negative emotional responses of angry denial ("you don’t have ANY freedom
in relation to me!") or of outright 'rebellion' ("I don’t care--I am
NOT going to consider your claims on me at all--I will make my choices
ONLY on the basis of my personal perspectives and information, whether it's
self-destructive or not") or even of demonic-like destructive choices
("I am going to resist your authority everywhere I know it exists--and I
will use all my relative independence to thwart all your efforts to grow people
into trusting, loving, humble, responsible, respectful, considerate, and
cooperative agents"). There are milder forms of these, of course, and more
'respectable' ones, but one MIGHT be able to identify superiority/arrogance
issues in the heart, by thinking about God's authority over us. If our heart
blanches or quails or swells up with angry hubris toward God when we think of
the possibility of our accountability before a Maker, then this might indicate
a problem here.
3. Closely related to this arrogance-superiority
issue, would be our emotional response to the fact of our moral failures before
God. If, as we discussed above, God was the source of our moral
sensitivities and was also the 'standard' by which moral perfection was
correctly judged, then we--as moral agents--would likely find ourselves in
situations in which our moral choices were out-of-synch with what was pure and
beautiful. We could easily fail to do what is good, or even do what is
anti-good. And honesty would require us to be able to admit before our God and
our fellows that we had erred (sometimes unintentionally, but sometimes with
selfish and/or destructive intent). In biblical terms, this means admitting to
God (and on some occasions, to others) that we had 'sinned', that we had
committed or participated in some act that was contrary to the good of the
universe/community, and/or to the health of the interpersonal relationships
important to our full experience of life (i.e., with God, other people, and
ourselves). An arrogant heart is not going to be "happy" about having
to admit culpability to ANYONE--especially a morally-perfect God! In spite of
the fact that humans consistently and universally "commit sin"(!), we
do NOT like to admit it to ourselves, admit it to others, or admit it to God.
We mutter apologies, we write "I am sorry" notes instead of doing it
face-to-face, we 'soften' our admissions of true guilt to less 'direct' versions--"I
am sorry IF you took my actions in a negative way…" So, in this
thought-experiment, think back about the most morally inappropriate thing you
have EVER done--something ANY moral standard would likely judge as destructive
of good. Then, visualize yourself admitting this to a perfect (yet
warm-hearted) God, and then apologizing to God for the damage done in history
to others of His loving. If this provokes emotional responses of "not
going there.." or "forgiveness is an outdated or barbaric notion"
or "I could never do that, since God himself is probably no better than
me…blah, blah, blah", then there is likely an arrogance issue to be dealt
with. [This assumes, of course, that you have removed most of the grounds for
substantive moral objections to God (e.g. biblical situations, existence of
various types of evil in the world, tolerance of evil agents), as we discussed
above. Or, alternatively, you could proceed on the philosophical basis of God
as the definition of the Good and therefore morally superior by definition.]
Arrogant folks normally can't stomach the word 'forgiveness' (except where
'forgiving others' is way to assert their elitist self-image and maintain
distance from the 'forgivee'…such a contrast from the Jesus who came to earth
in solidarity with us, to "bear our sin" for us, so that the distance between us and God and our
fellow humans could be completely removed…
4. Perhaps another method would be in the personal
limitations category. In this method, you would make a list of all the areas of
your life that you think you need help in. (This is not a list of 'mistakes'
you have made, unless they are recurring and seemingly out of control.) This
might include things like:
·
removal
of fear of death
·
greater
warmth toward people
·
less
patronizing tone/attitudes
·
greater
outreach and service to the needy
·
greater
humility of spirit
·
'slower
to anger'
·
more
trusting of others
·
more
ruthless honesty
·
assessing
BOTH sides of an argument with the same rigor
·
applying
the same moral standards of judgment to YOURSELF, that you apply to OTHERS
·
better
focus on the core values of life
·
ability
to make people feel more comfortable around me
·
greater
ethics in work output and quality
·
less
reluctant cooperation with authority
·
giving
people the benefit-of-doubt more frequently (when NOT clearly contraindicated)
·
any
compulsions and/or addictions you are aware of
·
any
habits/patterns you have that tend to kill, trivialize, or 'sour' personal
relationships
·
[add
your own items, from a session of honest self-appraisal]
Then, rank them in terms of severity and
stubbornness, ranging from 'out of control/I am helpless and cannot beat this'
to 'optional, but something I have always wanted to be better at'. Then you
visualize admitting those needs before an all-seeing God, and asking God for freedom and release in those
areas you cannot conquer without the help of another person/Person. Can you
visualize asking God for help, without feeling resentment or anger or
petulance? Do you sense your heart revolting against the idea, or does your
heart almost yearn to open itself up to His non-judgmental help? In this
process of admitting "inferiority" to your Creator, does your heart
feel the calm humility of honesty, or does it agitate and want to throw a
temper tantrum?
5. Another way to 'inspect your attitude' is to
ponder the following facts, and see if your heart responds with anger or feels
that wonderfully superior feeling of 'insult':
·
God
is Himself free, and a person. He doesn't have to EVER reveal Himself to
you--especially if you are a demanding, tantrum-throwing soul. Like humans,
personal disclosure is a choice, and we often choose NOT to share ourselves
with people who are abusive, belligerent, demanding, etc…
·
If
you set all kinds of criteria that God has to 'meet' in order to satisfy YOUR definitions
of what is 'acceptable', God has perfect freedom to walk away from the deal. If
you try to set Terms & Conditions that He considers unacceptable (i.e.,
destructive to you and others--you cannot hurt Him per se), He doesn’t
have to commit or co-operate.
·
If
you set ultimatums and hoops that God has got to jump through, He may decide
that it is NOT in your best interest for Him to start the relationship that
way. The relationship will NEVER be a peer-to-peer, though it will be
heart-to-heart. If He knows you will always be trying to manipulate or maneuver
God around--and probably others made in His image--He might easily back out and
wait for you to get more 'real' and 'honest' first.
6. A final method might be to use the assessments of
others, although this is more easily manipulated and/or rationalized. In
this method, you pick 10-20 people who know you best/longest, or have observed
you for long periods. Be sure to include any long-term business associates with
whom you have had many, many interactions over the years, and especially any
employees that you have managed. Then, you make a soul-searching guess as to
how each of these people would "rate you" in terms of arrogance. Use
a scale of "0- the most humble and unassuming human ever alive" and
"10-thinks he IS the BEST/ONLY human ever alive, and treats us sub-humans
accordingly". Don't actually ASK them to do this, since the worse your
score is ACTUALLY, the less likely they are to tell you the truth to your
face…This has its own set of problems, as you can imagine, since the prideful
will likely 'inflate' their ratings in the eyes of others…["When the
College Board asked high school seniors to compare themselves with others their
own ages, 60 percent reported themselves better than average in athletic
ability, only 6 percent below average. In leadership ability 70 percent rated
themselves above average, 2 percent below average. In ability to get along with
others, zero percent of the 829,000 students who responded rated
themselves below average, while 60 percent saw themselves in the top 10 percent
and 25 percent put themselves in the top 1 percent. If Elizabeth Barrett
Browning were still writing she would perhaps rhapsodize, 'How do I love me?
Let me count the ways.'", CS:PTEF:130f]. But even though this can be
easily rationalized ("he would rate me as arrogant, because he is so
stupid that he wouldn't recognize humility if it came up and bit him on
the…"), at more honest moments it might be useful in conjunction with the
other methods above.
Okay, so what I am suggesting here is to :
1. keep a close watch on your emotional openness to, and ability to deal with, being a derivative and dependent 'creature',
2. try to balance the scales by attempting to find the weaknesses in your own arguments, evidence, positions; and ;
3. face up to the reality that ANY decision will involve an element of personal choice, and will accordingly reveal aspects of your character, values, and honesty before God and the universe.