"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
No comments:
Post a Comment