Utter certainty, yet leavened by humility and doubt
Speaking of unshakeable faith, Andrew Sullivan gave a pretty good display of that (and I don’t mean that as a compliment) in the debate with Sam Harris. A pretty good display of knowing what he can’t know, of labeling beliefs as ‘truth’ merely because he has decided to believe them for no very good reason, of admitting it’s all nonsense yet insisting that he knows it all the same.
The reason I cannot conceive of my non-existence is because I have accepted, freely and sanely, the love of Jesus, and I have felt it, heard it, known it. He would never let me go. And by never, I mean eternally. And so I could never not exist and neither could any of the people I have known and loved. For me, the radical truth of my faith is therefore not that God exists, but that God is love (a far, far less likely proposition). On its face, this is a preposterous claim, and in my defense, I have never really argued in this dialogue that you should not find it preposterous. It can be reasoned about, but its truth itself is not reasonable or reachable through reason alone. But I believe it to be true – not as a fable or as a comfort or as a culture. As truth.
His admission that it’s preposterous is disarming, in a way, yet that also makes it all the more annoying. As Sam Harris firmly points out at the end.
In your last essay you admit that your notion of God is “preposterous” and then say that you never suggested I should find it otherwise. You acknowledge the absurdity of faith, only to treat this acknowledgement as a demonstration of faith’s underlying credibility. While I have yet to see you successfully pull yourself up by your bootstraps in this way, I have watched you repeatedly pull yourself down by them. You want to have things both ways: your faith is reasonable but not in the least bound by reason; it is a matter of utter certainty, yet leavened by humility and doubt; you are still searching for the truth, but your belief in God is immune to any conceivable challenge from the world of evidence.
Just so – Sullivan acknowledges the absurdity of faith, only to treat this acknowledgement as a demonstration of faith’s underlying credibility. Well, at that rate, everything has underlying credibility, and epistemic chaos is our own true home.
Sullivan: “The reason I cannot conceive of [X] is because I have accepted, freely and sanely, [Y].”
X = “my non-existence”
Y = “the love of Jesus”
Is there a connection between these two ideas? I think Mr. Sullivan has some ‘splainin’ to do.
Sam is the man.
“Credo quia absurdum.” Where have I heard that before? Yes, it’s mangled Tertullian (<http://www.tertullian.org/articles/sider_credo.htm>), but it’s not an infrequent stance for the religious to adopt.
In the article I referred to above, Sider argues that Tertullian is really basing his position on Aristotle’s claim, in the Rhetoric, that “some stories are so improbable that it is reasonable to believe them.” Or as Aristotle writes: “For the things which men believe are either facts or probabilities: if, therefore, a thing that is believed is improbable and even incredible, it must be true, since it is certainly not believed because it is at all probable or credible” (Rhetoric II.23.21).
But this is clearly not a logically sound principle; it is, at best, a persuasive rhetorical gambit. And that is what “arguments” like Sullivan’s are: effective rhetorical devices, if anything.
And the claim to be “searching and questioning,” while all along insisting on believing the unbelievable, which Harris zeros in on, is sheer rhetoric. And very effective: it bamboozles masses of people.
The politest thing one can say – and there are a lot of ruder things, believe me, is:
“Awa’ wi’ the Fairies!”
As others have already pointed out, there is no connection whatsoever between the positions taken, nor any underlying logic or reason.
And the same is even more true of that religion which calls itself submission.
I understand Hitchens’ demolition of that one – see an earlier thread – is very good.
Have you seen Sullivan’s ‘review’ of the movie ‘The Big Silence’ on his blog? Wherein he commends the film to atheists as a way of understanding the truth of Christianity.
Apparently the truth of Christianity is a bunch of old Frenchmen wasting their time…
Andrew Sullivan: “On its face, this is a preposterous claim”
When it gets up and dusts itself off it’s still a preposterous claim. It has “preposterous” through it like the letters in a fractal stick of rock
Rockingham: “Apparently the truth of Christianity is a bunch of old Frenchmen wasting their time…”
I thought that’s the truth of critical theory?
“God is love”?
He’s right: a category mistake “is not reasonable or reachable through reason alone”.
“God is love”
And he who lives in love lives in God. This is a difficult one for me to reason!
“Sullivan argues that faith is a legitimate choice for intelligent people”.
For the reason of that of stating the above, would Sullivan then argue further that faith is an illegitimate choice for lesser intelligent people? Alternatively, so, or what? Where do they from his viewpoint fit into the “faith” equation choice. After all not all, our forbearers with the gift of intelligence to analyse our “faith” positions have “consecrated”? us all.
JonJ,
You and Sullivan triggered a memory of my 11th grade Latin. Im not 100% that my memory is correct, but here goes nothing –
(A) ‘Credo quia absurdum est’ = ‘I believe because it is absurd’.
But, with a little tweak we get something better…
(B) ‘Credo quia absurdus sum’ = ‘I believe because I am absurd.’
I’m pretty sure Sullivan falls under the latter.
(All apologies to Mrs. Wilson, where ever she may be!)
It’s quite frustrating readin’, Sullivan just doesn’t respond to Harris’ points. At all!
Andy,
Of course Sullivan didn’t respond to Harris – he has faith. There is almost no point to the ‘conversation’ because Sullivan is not bound by logic or reason. He gets to to follow whatever path makes him feel good.
By and large I have a good regard for Sullivan; when arguing on substantive matters he is eloquent, witty and humane. But here Harris leaves him nowhere to go except argument from personal conviction.
I think he fought his corner as well as anyone could, but the result was never in doubt.
Marie-Therese;
‘…would Sullivan then argue further that faith is an illegitimate choice for lesser intelligent people?’
Ha! A hit, a very palpable hit.
Mmmm, the sweet, sweet taste of epistemic chaos!
Most frustrating – and I assume Harris didn’t tackle this one because it would be to unfairly ‘stick the boot in’ – is Sullivan’s reflection upon when he concluded that God is evil.
Now, first I’d say that whether God is evil shouldn’t necessarily relate to whether or not you believe in him, especially if you think that understanding God – but not proof of his existence – is beyond our ken. But this clearly does matter to Sullivan’s faith and so is interesting. Sullivan basically says that all of a sudden he realised that there was so much suffering in the world, and he was concerned with this, and then “the feeling just went away”. And that’s his proof of God not being “evil”! That seems to be a morally comtempible position, e.g. he basically would rather not contemplate suffering.
This relates to solipsism, I think. So many people of faith (in fact, people in general) do have a rather hard time imagining that other people, now and throughout history, ACTUALLY exist. E.g. exist in a real, tangible sort of way, that they had consciousness, and dreams and feelings and all the rest of it. I think this position is easier if you have a faith, a) because you feel that your personal relationship with God overides relationships with other people, and b) you allow the transcendent omnipotence of God to do pretty much whatever he wants, e.g. tomorrow he could change your entire universe to make you live in a great blamange mountain in the sky.
Don, > “Touché” < I’ll play this bout first; set it by awhile. Come. Another hit; what say you? A touch, a touch, I do confess.
He wears his faith but as the fashion of his hat.
God likes virtue. Faith is virtue. Faith is ridiculous. God exists.
Since God exists, to not believe in him is ridiculous.
Atheism is therefore more virtuous than faith in the eyes of God.
QED. ;-)
This exchange will be very useful in the classroom: Sullivan makes explicit the pseudo-Kierkegaardian sensibility that so many undergraduates find instinctively appealing. But in its explicitness it is transparently inadequate. Score another victory for Sam Harris.
I’ve often thought that conservative/religious people literally can’t think straight.
Somebody just pointed me toward this relevant article: “Conservatism As A Mental Disorder – And A Threat”:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/28/308/98527
Betsy really must have been burning the midnight oil when she was coming up with this stuff. Why so much creation for billions of years before she finally got around to us?
These photos are amazing:
http://reference.aol.com/space/hubble-images?ncid=AOLRNL00140000000006