Emptying of the Divine (the Predicament of Belief blog, pt. 2)

"Human reason inevitably finds itself confronted with questions it cannot answer empirically. One cannot prove that these broader questions are answerable, of course. But nor can one prove that they are meaningless or inherently unanswerable, since trying to do so entails resorting to the very kind of arguments one is trying to place off limits." (pg. 27)

Like my last one this post is a part of a blog tour through Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp's the Predicament of Belief, which I am taking part of with the guys at Homebrewed Christianity who on March 15th will be hosting a "Theo-nerd book party" with Philip Clayton, giving readers and listeners a chance to throw some tough questions about the book and the Emergent village podcast (which can be found at the Homebrewed website) to Philip.

In this chapter the authors take upon themselves the task of establishing a minimalist understanding for what they call an ultimate reality or "UR". They do so in a way that tries to maintain a position of respect for the scientific advances of the modern era. They go about establishing there arguments in a sequence of building blocks, so far not unlike a more postmodern version of  C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity". 

They make it very clear that they are not trying to establish a sort of empirical apologetic set of evidence that proves the existence of some sort of divine or ultimate reality. Instead they are using philosophical questions to argue that the existence of the before mentioned is minimally more likely to be true than false. This approach leaves room for doubt as well as committed faith (at it's best, of course.)

The authors pose the question of "Why even ask about the ultimate?", and then go about saying that these kinds of questions are worth asking and worth trying to find the answer to. Science, while having made vast progress of late, cannot answer every single question and is not infallible. "It doesn't take much reflection, however, to realize that precise empirical results are achievable only if the investigator makes certain assumptions about the nature of the reality being studied." (pg. 26)

They first propose a "mind-like" UR that could be coherent with a singular universe theory or the multiverse theory.

If this is the only universe then the largely improbable odds of the universe being governed by fundamental laws that allow for the expansion of life as we experience it. This approach (I'm assuming) is still arguing for a minimalist approach that says that theories about a mind-like UR are slightly more likely to be true than false, as opposed to an argument like intelligent design which says (according to an end-note from the authors) that the evidence supports that idea that a mind-like UR must exist.

Their response to the multiverse theory is similar in that it relies on some fundamental governing laws in the universes that could best be described by a mind-like UR.

From there the authors propose that the mind-like UR is probably an agent of action, in that (if my understanding is correct) it acts intentionally. This argument of intent is not hard to see from the singular universe theory, and they make the argument for the multiverse theory as well.

And this is where it gets interesting...

So if (the authors propose) this UR is mind-like and agent like and created this universe with some intention then wouldn't the creation of finite persons from an infinite being require a limiting of the infinite self or reality? They point to the Christian concept of kenosis, which is a Greek term for "an emptying" and is employed in Paul's description of Jesus in Philippians 2:7.

And what reason would an infinite (therefore lacking nothing) reality have of emptying or restricting one's self to create something finite? The authors argue that it must be something similar to the Christian concept of agape love.

Finally they close the chapter with a discussion of what they call the "divine lure" and what sociologist Peter Berger called "signals of transcendence" that, while providing no empirical evidence, seem to at least point in the direction of an ultimate and benevolent reality.

From this philosophical ground they have created the framework for a not less than personal and benevolent ultimate agent, which they admit still has a long way to go before being truly consistent with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and further still to the strictly Christian God that acted, in some way, through the person of Jesus. But that's saved for the next chapter.

Doubt, Agnosticism and Christian Minimalism (the Predicament of Belief blog , pt. 1)

"This is a difficult era for those who find themselves committed to the the values of scientific rationality and yet moved by the claims of  religious tradition... it is hard to decide what parts of one's tradition it makes sense to reject or retain." (pg. vii)

For the next couple of weeks I will be blogging through "the Predicament of Belief" by Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp". But before I jump into that a few quick words:

Big thanks to Trip Fuller and the guys at Homebrewed Christianity for my introduction to Philip Clayton and hooking me up with the book. I want to encourage anyone who's curious to check out the blog and podcast here, which includes Clayton's talk at the Emergent Village Theological Conversation. On the blog you will also find information about a live streamed "theological nerd book" party on March 15th.

Also, I want to admit something: I am in over my head here. I know this based off of reading the comments on the blog and listening to the podcast talk. I've never been to seminary and I'm certainly no scholar ( I attended one year of Bible College fresh out of high school, but that's it). So as I blog through the book don't expect in groundbreaking insights, just my struggle with this book. And by the way, when I say blog through the book I mean I will be posting as I am reading. I'm not reading ahead I'm posting at the end of each chapter I read, which means I may occasionally pose questions that will (hopefully) later be answered.

And now to chapter 1: Reasons for Doubt

In the first chapter the authors outline what they suggest are the five best reasons to doubt traditional Christian claims today. They are as follows:

1. Science: We now understand natural reasons for phenomenon that in per-modern times would have been attributed to the divine.

2. Evil: "this is the problem of reconciling the hypothesis of a good and powerful God with the experience of bad things that such a God , if this being really existed, would be expected to stop or prevent." (pg. 8)

3. Religious plurality: Since other religions claim knowledge and experience of the divine and have led to achievements in art, individual moral behavior and social reform how can Christians claim to be correct?

4. The state of historical evidence: How do we know we can trust our later manuscripts of ancient writings that seem to contradict each other and make outlandish claims regarding the gospel story?

5. The claim of resurrection: This one to me seems to actually embody the previous four reasons for doubt in a singular incident. Why should one affirm resurrection considering advances in our understanding of the way the human body works (1), lack of current evidence to support the traditional claim that God was setting the world right or achieving justice and victory over death in that specific act (2), questions over why the divine would act decisively in one human from one religious tradition and claims of resurrection from other traditions (3), and the lack of what moderns would consider definitive evidence to support such a claim (4). This makes this crucial claim one of the most troubling of all.

The authors pose these doubts as an attempt at honesty. Why shouldn't Christians engage the serious questions that relate to our faith without dismissing them as attacks on our faith? In my personal experience even when I try to dismiss them they have a haunting effect (especially number 2) in my mind. Even when I don't want to ask these questions I still do. So why should I run from them? 

From what I have gathered this book sets out to do just the opposite...

It attempts to engage these questions...

I want to engage these questions.

But in the light of these reasons to doubt another important question surfaces. Why not just be an agnostic? But, that would assume that we cannot, and should not try to answer these questions so why engage them?

I couldn't be an agnostic even if I wanted to, I think, because these questions would still haunt me.

Maybe the doubts are worth engaging, but in a more honest and thereby humble way...

Which is why the authors propose "Christian minimalism" or the idea that the beliefs we affirm or only minimally more likely to be true than false. In other words what changes is not whether you hold the beliefs or not but the certainty with which we hold them.

For me the first and most obvious implication of this is that it doesn't allow for the "tight fisted" holding of dogma that is a common trait in many fundamentalist types. This means you can believe in something without holding it in a way that makes you want to use violence against those who would disagree with or challenge your beliefs. I like that...

But another implication is what keeps this from being practically agnosticism? As the author points out it's basically similar to saying we can't really know with any certainty if these claims are worth affirming. Why would I act on a conviction that is only slightly more likely to be true than false? How could that conviction transform me?

I'm not saying that it can't but how would that work?

I appreciate the attempt to find a middle ground between the extremes of blind fidelity and agnosticism ( as well as the other alternative of outright rejection) but what does that look like for me? What does it look like for my engagement in my faith community? What about in a leadership role?

That's what I'm working through right now. Listening to the podcast talk helped a little but it raised a lot more questions than it answered (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be a little frustrating).

Anyway, that's all for now but be on the lookout for more posts soon ( I can't say when because my reading schedule is basically whenever it fits into my work and school schedule).

Grace and Peace