I have read this argument from Ulrich Willers in a German article which I render in my own words. It was originally based on the German language but I find the arguments compelling for English speakers too.
The distinctness of etymological comparison makes a good case against the word “belief†and for the word “faith†or “trustâ€. Real faith leans on experience, is not irrational but rather expresses well reasoned trust from one’s understanding of life. Hebrews 11:1 is a classical example of this: „Now faith is the essence of things being hoped, the evidence of things not having been seen."
Of course, there is always the danger of misunderstanding the verse intellectually in the sense that what one cannot know, one must believe, or “to believe means not to knowâ€. However firstly, this is a projection of a modern set of difficulties into times past. Secondly, and more important, the accentuation in Hebrews is set differently, contacting with the experience of the disciple, just as it always has been done from the beginning of the quest for salvation.
In this sense faith is the trust that strengthens and gives us stability, even there where we cannot “see†what will be. The context of this text is the assertion of a God who gives people hope. Faith is the strength of hope, which is prevalently witnessed in church history (Heb.12:1: “great cloud of witnessesâ€). The letter to the Hebrews brings a valid expression of what is also witnessed by other NT scriptures – that Jesus becomes himself the leader, even “the Author and Finisher of faith†(Heb.12:2).
Summarizing as a witness of the faith which is orientated on the model of Abraham, we can say: Whoever is embedded in God, not only gains a footing, but also orientation and is given a new ability to perceive and a new insight – in other words, the ability of discernment through trust.
Where we are apart is in the acceptance that “truth” must be universal, or it isn’t truth, but this doesn’t mean that if I’m right, someone else has to be wrong. I believe that truth is always subject to my use of language, my cultural background and of course, my life experience. No wonder then, that truth has many facets and images.
Brought into the context of this article, the faith that religious people develop throughout the world and which has proven trustworthy over the centuries becomes equally “the essence of things being hoped, the evidence of things not having been seenâ€. It is interesting that the point of contact is Abraham, where the book religions converge, and where, if at all, dialog can take place.
The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is the pinnacle of divine intervention for us Christians, but what an intervention. No parting of the seas, no burning bush, no exodus, no cloud or tablets of stone. No great and strong wind, no earthquake, no consuming fire but rather a still small voice of hope. This is enough for those willing to be embedded in God. That is enough to gain a footing in this world and orientation. That is enough for a new perception of life and a new insight – and, as I already said, the ability of discernment through trust.
I don’t need exclusivism because I am already secure, embedded in God.
Yep, we do part where we part, that’s a fact. Though, If pluralism is how it is, then I’m not wrong, and if exclusivism is how it is, then my exclusive beliefs are obviously the right ones, so I’m not wrong then either. So that’s cool.
I do agree with you that faith is basically the same thing across religions, and that it's a virtue even in faiths other than mine. If a life-long Hindu was exposed to a single Christian who briefly explained a few things about our faith, the Hindu [i]ought not[/i] fly into a tizzy of doubt and skepticism. The reason he 'sticks to his guns' is faith, and faith is a virtue. The fact is, the Hindu is wrong, but he needs to be in a certain situation to properly see that- not be driven here and there by flights of fancy.
The reason he ‘sticks to his guns’ is because of insecurity. But on the other hand, it may also be the Christian, who isn’t what he claims to be.
I believe that truly spiritual people recognise the spirituality in others and they relax. They understand their affinity and are aware that the words which have been written are written to express a revelation, and are not the revelation itself. They understand that the differing stories that build up their traditions are but serving vehicles of the truth, and not the truth itself. They know that words, stories and they themselves are but carriers of the message, but not the message itself.
If only we could only understand that we are ourselves our greatest problem in witnessing the truth. We are not whole, we are not at peace, we are not pure, we do not love, we do not hunger for righteousness – but we try to ignore this and be witnesses of the truth … it is quite rational that people don’t believe us.
Are you sure that you see properly? I would like to think so, but is the beam in our own eye not our inability to see our own imperfection?
Wait, people don’t change their beliefs when confronted by new ones because they are insecure? You’re going to have a hard time selling me that. But then, I never believed my parents when they said bullies were suffering from not enough self-esteem, either. It seems obvious to me that the person secure in his beliefs doesn’t change his mind when confronted with new ones- and hence, security can be unwarranted, and isn’t always virtuous.
Of course I'm not sure- but not being sure is an admission of exclusivism. Being uncertain is believing that I might be in error. Being in error means the truth isn't with me. The truth not being with me means [i]it is[/i] somewhere else. I used the Hindu as a hypothetical, I can turn it around just as easily. The Christian, wrong in his Christianity, cannot simply turn away from it on a whim. Faith keeps him in his convictions until [i]good and proper evidence [/i]comes along to sway him.
But you see only black and white, take it or leave it, yes or no. Why are we not able to listen and learn? Why do we fear the unknown? Don’t we need time to understand that which is foreign to us, or what makes another human being tick?
You left out the other possibility I mentioned – namely that the person the Hindu meets may not be genuine. I think that this is the greatest problem in the so-called culture conflict. I have mentioned elsewhere that I have misgivings that Christianity is all it could be and that it has compromised itself in most western countries by servitude to Mammon. I have experienced enough examples of that.
I believe that just as politicians may start a war to take peoples eyes off of the mess they are making at home, Christians often turn missionaries to take attention off of their own integral weaknesses. It is simple psychology really. Ask yourself about why you spend time at night in front of a church instead of being there when everyone else is there.
Insecurity is the greatest cause of suffering – without trying to explain why people beat their children and wives, hate or kill people – because the culprits are often victims themselves. When a problem grows beyond our ability to curb it, we become militant. It is all insecurity.
Being embedded in God however, gives us the assurance that whatever happens, I have a source of hope, discernment and insight through faith. I won’t loose my footing or my orientation, but will be able to take the next step.
From my perspective it seems to be the opposite. In a pluralist environment, there is no unknown to fear. There's nothing to learn- you already know it all, or at least, what you know is as good as anything you've yet to hear.
For every instance of hard-denial "It's my way or the highway" type thinking, there's an instance of soft-denial "That's 'true for you', something else is 'true for me'" type thinking. They're both methods of avoiding the pain of being wrong.
Pluralism is not discipline, it is not scholarship, it is not courage.
No, I included it, I just didn’t state it. That the person the Hindu meets might not be genuine. Or they might be wrong, or crazy, or have some evil manipulative end in mind. These are all good reasons why a person ought to have faith in what they’ve trusted to be true, instead of being blown around like a leaf by every new idea they experience.
That's one thing I don't disagree about. I consider the degree to which it has caved to notions of pluralism to be a facet of that, though.
Naturally the answer is none of your business. But take it under advisement that I spend adequate time thinking about it even when it’s not shoved in my face. Sore spot.
I cannot claim this kind of all-knowingness. You may be in such an environment where this comes easy to you, but my environment has a great diversity and I couldn’t begin to understand all of what I see. In my immediate vicinity there live Germans, Brits, Kurds, Palestinians, Poles, Russians, Slovenians, Moroccans, and some which I cannot define.
Pluralism is a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups can maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of an agreed common civilization. We need this kind of agreement, but for it, we need a source of hope, discernment and insight through faith which strengthens and gives us stability.
Too many people try to cope without having their own stability, immaturely pretending that it “will be alrightâ€, and causing problems because they fail to see that people need to know where others come from. Those with the intellectual shallowness of western youth are seen as more of a danger than conservative groups.
OK, you have shown the two extremes. Where is the path in between? You seem to insist that in religious matters, there must be a “right†and “wrongâ€, there can be no path between. Either denial or agreement, there is nothing else. How can you have relationships with people by that premise? Do you have relationships on this principle? Can you have another opinion without breaking up?
Pluralism may not be discipline, scholarship or courage in your eyes, but it is an alternative to exclusivist limitedness and parochial provincialism. Since reality is composed of many parts and that no single explanation or view of reality can account for all aspects of life, we have to confront this aspect of life without the illusion of being able to make it uniform. Creation isn’t like that. Faith isn’t like that.
Why do you ignore what I have written?
This means that I must not be “blown around like a leaf” by every new idea I experience, because I have stability and orientation.
May I humbly suggest that you do not offer “sore spots†as a subject for discussion in a public forum then?
We’ve been into this kinda sorta a few times before, but maybe this time. When I say that your truth is not my truth, it isn’t about avoiding being wrong. Quite the contrary. It is the realization that no matter who we are, we see the world from but the tiniest perspective (our own) and that there are as many perspectives as there are people. Should you and I disagree, it isn’t about being right or wrong (between us) it is simply a difference of perspective. In short, you can be right (for you) and I can be right (for me) and we can still disagree.
If there is going to be problems, it is when I say I am right (for you). You speak of discipline, scholarship, and courage. Scholarship? Yes. To the extent that it informs me from my particular perspective, or to allow me to contemplate the perspective of others. Discipline? I would probably change this word to conviction. We act as we are within our perspective. Courage? I like this word. For me courage is understanding and accepting the limitations of what I can know and not fearing letting this be seen by one and all. My screen name, tentative, was a deliberate choice to reflect that understanding.
That said, we all must act from our particular perspective point. There is no seeing but from a perspective point, and this is the act of faith. to know the not knowing and to act upon that not knowing in spite of it.
Not religious matters. ALL matters. As pertains to religion, all I've said from the start is that I see no reason to treat it differently than anything else. That there's no "path" between right and wrong should be clear to everyone. Overly flowery language is necessary to obfuscate the point.
So far, so good. I do find it interesting, that with all the different types of relationships in the world, you chose to bring up the fact that I recently went through a break up.
Well, that's dispelled. Once I realize someone is trying to get under my skin [i]on purpose[/i], it stops being irritating and starts being funny. I'm much more comfortable talking to you now.
The problem here, and I should have seen this years ago, is that you're conflating a matter of fact with an emotional reaction that isn't necessarily associated with it. When someone disagrees with me about something- say, religion, politics, the sum of 3 and 5, I can maintain they are wrong without hating them, or indeed, without it causing any real strife. You can't have missed that I get along smashingly with some of the more prominant atheists around here. When someone rubs me the wrong way, it's not because I think they're wrong. It must be something else.
If you're under the impression that calling somebody wrong means you can't have a relationship with them, that's your affair. I certainly don't agree, and the evidence of that should be more than apparent.
Tell me then, what Creation is like. What Faith is like. You know it’s not like whatever I think it is, so there’s some negative statemens. So let’s hear some positive statements to go along with them, and we’ll see how pluralistic you are after all. The only problem I have with pluralism is that it’s impossible.
Mostly to keep myself civil.
I didn't mean to imply that you had this problem. I was [i]trying to agree with you. [/i] I agree that faith is a virtue, and that it can be described as belief on an appropriately placed trust. I was giving the 'conversion resistance' situation as an example of faith- the Hindu resists the influence of the Christian because of an appropriately placed trust in what he's been taught, and his own experiences with the Divine. That's faith as I see it. How you managed to turn my admission that people of traditions other than my own can have virtuous, appropriate faith into an occaision to confront me about my exclusivist ways is something I'm still reeling over.
Yes, I’ll watch my back. Thank you.
tentative
You probably won’t believe this, but I actually didn’t have you in mind when I said what I said. Irrespective of what you mean when you say such things, I think you’d have to agree that plenty of people do it for the reasons I specified, as well?
It still sounds like you’re using “right for me” as a way for to enjoy the satisfaction of being correct, and avoid the pain of being wrong. In that respect, it doesn’t seem a lot different than the dogmatist tuning people out- isn’t that why the exclusivist refuses to listen? Because being wrong brings about a certain kind of pain, and so listening to a contrary view is a risk? What would seperate your approach from the exclusivist is that your extending that same balm to them as well- they get to be right too!
Absolutely. My point all along has been that the attitude you're discribing is all about conflict-avoidance, and not much at all about truth-seeking. Yes, refusing to ever say anybody is wrong about anything (including yourself) will leave you open contemplating various views. You'll be contemplating them for the rest of your life, most likely. As others here have said better than me, though, philosophy isn't just about contemplation, it's about coming to conclusions and judgements about the things you contemplate.
There is no satisfaction in being “right”, but it wouldn’t be the first time that has been misinterpreted. I am right - for me, but that only gives me the conviction to be who I am, and it has nothing to do with anyone else. I enjoy people who are “right” - for themselves, and I have no problem either listening to other viewpoints or in expressing my own. For some reason, I thought that was why we are here.
I don’t know any other way to say it, but there is no ego protection in this for me. I’ve said this before, in a variety of ways. I’ve heard a lot of “you’re just saying that” and how does one answer that?
Do others get to be right too? Of course.
Read into it what you will, but quite frankly, the issue of seeking to be correct and avoiding pain is your projection of my intentions, they certainly aren’t mine.
Uh-huh, and how did this conversation become about how YOU do things in the first place? I certainly never said “Hey, a topic about faith. Why don’t I come crashing in to rag on the way Bob and tentative think for a while.” I dropped by to say, “Hey, I agree with Bob for a change, neat!” He sticks some subtle knife in about how HE doesn’t need exclusivism because he’s so secure, which I ignore to go on trying to agree with him. He responds by sticking another, more obvious knife in me, about how exclusivism is rooted in insecurity, and brings my personal life (of which I was very vague) in as evidence of the fact, and things go all to hell.
Now here you are. In a conversation that’s only about pluralism and exclusivism because Bob got it across his mind to bring it up, YOU come in to tell me all about how I’m mischaracterizing the way you do things, even though none of this has anything to do with you, so far as I can tell. I try to respond, but since the only thing you’ve offered to discuss is your private thoughts and methodology, you’re automatically right because you’re the only person who knows what’s going on in your head- something you point out like 3 times on your way back out of the conversation again.
So three questions.
1.) Do you guys activitely coordinate this sort of bullshit, or does it just look that way?
2.) What, you’re feeling like your ways of doing things are being criticized by someone who doesn’t have the foggiest idea what they’re talking about, and it just making gross speculation about your private notions? Join the fucking club. Feeling no pity for you here.
3.) Give me one good reason why Bob’s “People are exclusivists because they’re insecure” is one wit different than my “People are pluralists because they’re afraid of the pain of being wrong.”
Aha, conspiracy theories here. The question is simply about relationships in general, between people, between communities, between countries. Is it possible to base them on the things you have written? You know as well as I do that it isn’t a matter of right or wrong or black or white. Life is complex, relationships just as complex. Insecurities complicate the issue.
The form of “discernment by trust†that I quoted at the beginning gives us the inner peace we need to become peacemakers. The article by Willers is very long and seeks to show that the insecurity that intellectuals try to induce upon spiritual people is not warranted, since the claims that faith is something opposite to reason cannot be substantiated. Faith feeds on reasonable confidence that arises from trustworthy experience and principles.
Creation is first of all an amassing of diversity. I have heard that there have been more species become extinct than are registered alive today. Life just seems to explode at some time back in time. Human beings are different, regardless how similar they seem. We all have our own mind, our own view, our own thoughts, and our own experiences. With regard to relating all of these impressions, we all have more or less difficulty making exactly the same statement about a common experience.
In my experience of spiritual people, there has been a great deal of similarity in what we believe, even though our sources may differ. The great diversity of traditions doesn’t have to disturb us – unless we feel insecure about it. It is the authenticity that is important, which confirms where I stand, but it need make no statement to where someone else may stand.
I responded (perhaps wrongly) to your “assumption†that you “must not be understanding something†and went on to portray where we differ and what it has to do with the subject. In fact, I believe I have mentioned my subject in every post because I believe it is valid.
I didn’t see the first “knife†as one, the second “knife†was more of a jibe, and the third “knife†seems to be coincidence. Writing these things as I do in-between a very busy timetable, I’d have to be psychic to be able to do the things you say.
Sure, that’s all true. But life, or a relationship is like a book- a volume. Yes, a whole book is very seldom right, wrong, black or white. No doubt about it. But that doesn’t mean that line 25 on page 166 has to be as murky as the book is when taken holistically. I completely grant that most, if not all faiths have true elements in them. That’s why you’ll hear me say that members of all faiths are better off sticking with the faith they inherited through their culture rather than changing- unless they are willing to take the time to educate themselves. My ability to say that comes from my trust that all religions, if not perfect, if not totally correct, are at least good enough that the stability they provide is better than undirected skepticism which can be very self-serving in the end.
But that kind of thinking, it seems to me, is for the casual life. That’s why I’m able to have friends that disagree with me about stuff. Even this stuff. My job as a friend, partner, or whatever, is to take the situation holistically. My job as a philosopher is to look at every page, and every word, and it’s in those details where the absolutes are found.
My take on the relationship between faith and reason has always been that faith is [i]not[/i] reason, but it is not opposed, either. It's just another faculty. One might compare it to vision, or memory. Neither of those things are reason, and I don't think they can be justified in terms of reason, either.
Are you talking casually? Like, in the beginning, there was diversity, and it came together to form this present Creation?
That’s another one of those things I see you say that I agree with, but that I don’t think applies to spirituality moreso than anything else in life.
There are certainly those people who find the diversity of viewpoints in the world threatening, and react irrationally (or, if you prefer, badly) to that fear. Like you said, people are diverse, very different from each other. I don’t think our reaction to this insecurity is monolithic- some people will react to it in ways you’d describe as exclusivist, some will react in ways you’d describe as pluralistic, but they can all be bad reactions rooted in fear.
I have to sort this statement (I am no intellectual):
A whole book is very seldom right, wrong, black or white.
Line 25 on page 166 isn’t as murky as the book when taken holistically.
I would have said that a holistic look at the book reveals the diversity, the grey areas and those things that have to be classed in a different way than appropriate or inappropriate, right or wrong. There are however, passages like line 25 on page 166 that shine. That is the way that I regard scripture, and if we are honest probably the way that anyone, who doesn’t reject scripture, would regard it – as long as they are not obligated to take every single line literally (which despite the claims, nobody does).
Wow, now we are getting somewhere. The problem I have always had in our discussions stems from your assumption that I would want people to “give up†their faith – even if you didn’t mean to address me personally, I felt myself wrongly lumped in with others. I have always made the point, curiously often with regard to my understanding with Tentative, that he and I differ insomuch as I will never give up Christianity and he will not become a Christian, but we can find common understanding. I appreciate the Tao te Ching, Confucianism, Buddhism and other sources of spiritual insight, but will never become a Taoist, and Confucian or Buddhist.
I also doubt that it is a question of education. I have met Hindus and Buddhists who are far better educated than I, and we drove through Sri-Lanka discovering our similarities and differences. An educated Buddhist or Hindu may have a critical stance to what the uneducated may believe, but they obviously have no need to throw it off. It is the humility of sharing of faith with the uneducated, forgetting the critical stance for a moment, which impressed me most.
Undirected scepticism is corrosive, I agree. I find that nothing is “perfectâ€, or “totally correct†that has involved human intervention. God is One, is Unity, Completeness, Perfection and our concept is as incomplete and biased as our regard to scripture. Jesus even says, “Why do you say that I am good?†and points to the Holy One. We may feel obliged to say, “But we see the Holy One at work in you!†But the fact remains.
It’s nice to see that you do have a “casual†life. Where does it become formal for you? You take your “job†as a philosopher seriously, looking for absolutes. My life becomes formal in communion with God. I use tradition, ritual, liturgy, scripture, meditation, contemplation here, which I don’t use elsewhere.
So you don’t see the diversity in creation? My statement wasn’t paraphrasing the creation story, but rather stating what I see. It is loveless and presumptuous to expect someone to be like me, but at the same time, if I see fear, insecurity and irrationality, I feel called to speak to people about it. (1Jo 4:18 ) “There is no fear where love exists. Rather, perfect love banishes fear, for fear involves punishment, and the person who lives in fear has not been perfected in love.â€
Of course, but weren’t the words of Willers exactly the opposite: “… faith is the trust that strengthens and gives us stability, even there where we cannot “see†what will be. The context of this text is the assertion of a God who gives people hope. Faith is the strength of hope, which is prevalently witnessed in church history…†which seeks to put fear aside?
“Real faith leans on experience, is not irrational but rather expresses well reasoned trust from one’s understanding of life. Hebrews 11:1 is a classical example of this: „Now faith is the essence of things being hoped, the evidence of things not having been seen.†I remind you that you agreed with this at the beginning.
Wow. Well, the only reason I came in was to answer a gross generalization:
I used myself as an example of the antithesis because I certainly wouldn’t want to talk about “them”. I shared a personal perspective.
But in your generalization you MADE it about not only me, but anyone who shares a similar viewpoint. You paint me with a tar brush and now you’re irritated that I should respond?
Look one more time at YOUR words. You left no room for me or people who share a similar understanding.
I'm split on this. I think things have a holistic value- people, books, poetry, are all greater than the sum of their parts, and cannot be completely understood by looking at the parts alone. But I'm not sure how that translates to truth value- a person or book can be wrong about this, right about that. I think that mixture of rightness and wrongness is what leads to the perception of things being gray.
I don't see Scripture as being any different in that regard- it has a certain holistic value which is good for some cases, but in other cases, we have to break it down line by line, and that's where any falsehood will creep up. I still see that as the difference between a philosopher and an average joe- the average joe can get away with taking the book as a whole. The philosopher is kind of obligated to look closer.
That is a misunderstanding. My impression of you has been that you think the ideal approach is to mix and match from all over the place- that is, the spiritually wise person might believe in reincarnation like the Hindus, dietary restrictions like the Muslims, a little of this, a little of that. I have a very big problem with that approach because
1.) It seems to be done in a very self-serving way most of the time, and
2.) While some beliefs in a religion may seem modular from a cursory glance, they in fact don’t make a whole lot of sense ripped up from the traditions and other beliefs that they were originally developed with.
So that’s not what you’re about, eh? I’m skeptical of the place and value of creativity in religion.
But isn’t that part of pluralism? Maybe it’s just my conception of truth, but it seems to me you’re asking me to say “A theistic religion is right in it’s theism, and a non-theistic religion is right in it’s atheism”. Even if you’re not saying that I personally have to adopt atheism, granting it’s correctness seems to
A.) Make no sense at all- I can’t hold to exclusive opposites to be true. Even if you convince me that I should, I don’t think I would be able.
B.) Saying that both beliefs are true seems like a sly, optimistic way of really saying that neither of them are true. After all, this whole “right for you, right for me” attitude is always presented to me immediately after someone points out that nobody actually knows anything. So in a way it does seem like the first step to pluralism is to accept that one’s own beliefs aren’t true. Which I can’t do, because I believe them.
So, then. Why will you never give up Christianity?
I didn’t mean to say that members of other faiths are less educated, I mean to say that an individual- regardless of their faith- should not question the religion of their upbringing unless they are willing to educate themselves, because an ignorant skepticism is far more dangerous than a blind faith in tradition most of the time. Of course, a person may educate themselves, and come to realize that the faith of their upbringing was the right one after all.
I can’t say that Christianity is perfect, because if I do, you’ll just ask me which denomination of it I mean, and rightly so.
We’re complete opposites in that regard. Communion with God, or worship as I call it, has seemed like a leisure activity to me now for quite some time- it’s what I do when I’ve been at work in philosophy for long enough that I need a break. Which is not to say that I consider worship to be frivolous, exactly. One of the prime reasons for me to do the work of philosophy is so that I can enjoy my worship in good conscience.
Yeah, I see it. But I’ve always thought of it as a branching off from an original Unity, and not as a function of things from the start.
I'm not comprehending your point here. I agree with the Willers statement about faith, so far as I understand it. What I'm not understanding is how this leads to the topic of pluralism vs. exclusivism, or the point (which I disagree with) that exclusivism is a product of fear and insecurity to a greater degree than pluralism can be.
I still do agree with this, insofar as I understand it. What do you think is meant by 'well reasoned trust’, though?
