Machiavelli

What is the historical role of doubt in Christianity? If one of the tenants of Christianity is faith, it would seem to me that requires doubt to be an integral part of the religion. As I see it, faith cannot exist without some degree of doubt, otherwise it is knowledge.

But when speaking to a modern Christian of the American evangelical flavor, there seems to be no doubt whatsoever. They speak of it as if it is first hand knowledge and believe that challenging it would be like challenging whether or not 2 + 2 = 4.

However, as one growing up in a Christian family and indoctrinated at an early age, though I believed, I always felt that there was a healthy degree of doubt. And as long as that doubt was healthy, I didn't really have a lot of problems being a Christian. I was just a Christian with a lot of doubts.

As I grew up, I of course gave in to my doubts entirely. But nowadays, the flavor of Christians I'm around seem to reject any degree of doubt. They seem to believe and act as if their faith is knowledge. And I think this rigid beleif in something that can only be accepted by faith is a very dangerous combination.

IamMoose

That's a great question. I gave myself a hernia - can laydeez get hernias? - on a Chrisitanity forum once trying to get the residents to admit that they didn't KNOW that there was a God, they simply BELIEVED it. Most of them, I kid you not, refused to admit that there was a distinction, simply saying variations on 'but I do KNOW it!.' I gave up in the end before i burst messily, but it's something I've seen repeated again and again since then.

Personally, I believe that some Christians think that admitting to any doubt is a sign of weakness, which is rubbish ... one of Christ's disciples doubted, didn't he? (actually two of them did, and one of those doubted so much that he sold Jesus down the river). I have far more respect for the few Christians I meet who say 'I might be wrong' than the majority who say 'I couldn't possibly be.'

IamMoose

As an afterthought it cuts both ways .. I've seen atheists claim that they know there's NOT a God and that's not correct either.

CJD

The question reminded me of an article by Richard Rorty called "Trotsky and the Wild Orchids," Common Knowledge, 1.3 (1992): 141–153.

Adam Selig calls this approach to Dewey's "quest for certainty" "epistemological modesty," an attitude worth emulating in my opinion.

While I have come to the point of embracing much of what constitutes historic, Christian orthodoxy, I hope to have done so modestly. This often puts me in the strange position of deriding deductive dogmatists (like Bahnsen, et al.) and applauding attempts to fashion an inductive faith, one that embraces belief with a hint of uncertainty, where the leap is not all that gratuitous, where, above all else, proffered reasons are gilded with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:16).

Now, the very problem with trying to establish faith without doubt betrays one's bias toward the universal. In Rorty's words once again: "There is nothing sacred about the universality which makes the shared automatically better than the unshared." This is confirmed when we see, for example, that seeking an objective faith without doubt is just a matter of getting as much intersubjective agreement as you can manage.

We Xians have got to come through this "fiery brook of relativism." There is another side. But beware, what lies ahead may be disappointing; the other side is filled with just plain old humans—believers and non—all trying to make sense of this world.

Regards,

CJD

p.s. Knowledge is not the antithesis of faith, for one can have knowledge (i.e., faith) and still retain a measure of doubt.

Machiavelli

There isn't? Well just what makes something sacred?

Isn't that just another arbitrary dogmatic statement?

What better measure of whether something is real than by whether or not we all experience it?

I don't see how this confirms anything. Could you clarify this?

I guess it can only be disappointing if you were hoping to find something else. But I could see how if you had your heart set on eternal salvation that plain ol' making sense could let you down.


You can?

If someone asks me if I know what 2 + 2 is, I know the answer is 4. No doubt about it. I think this is a strong enough distinction between this sort of knowledge and something that does require faith to make the two mutually exclusive.

CJD

I suppose you're not familiar with the atheistic and pragmatic Rorty? He's deriding the notion of 'universals' in any sense. He does this because (IMO) observing (inductively) the many characteristics we all share interjects doubt into the atheist construct.

He thinks that any discussion of 'universality' is nothing more than arbitrary and dogmatic.

1. Xians tend to huddle together (i.e., 'getting as much intersubjective agreement as you can manage') in order to 'objectify' their faith.

2. Xians aren't the only ones who do this. In fact, every human group does it.

3. Ipso facto, we deem the universality which makes the shared automatically better than the unshared 'sacred'. But saying it so doesn't make it so. That's Rorty's point. We have no real reason, so Rorty, to believe this.

Yes. Knowledge comes in degrees. The certainty of math is nothing like the 'certainty' we hold to other propositions. And this is okay. Why? Because the relativizers themselves have been relativized; no one stands victorious; no one can escape it (not even Machiavelli).

Killer Mike

The fundamental psychological pathology of the Bible believer is that of dissociation. You can really believe something that deep down inside you know is not true. This is why they are so feveriously convinced and have no doubt in their faith. They block out those commen sense thoughts we all have of doubting. I mean does any rational and reasonabley intelligent human being really believe in Jesus' resurrection as literally happening? Of course not. But there are many subtle and not so subtle psychological pressures and mind control processes that manifest itself and people wind up believing something they know is not true.
For more detailed info see "The Mind of the Bible Believer" by Edmond Cohen, Ph.D. Check it out :thumbs:

judge

There is a lot of diversity with Christianity and a lot of different approaches.

I have learnt a lot on these forums from interacting with people with different points of view to my own and one of the things I have become more convinced of is that the scientific method is fairly in line with a Christian epistemology (historically at least).
I think it is fairly "Christian" to doubt and to test things to see whether they are sound.

I think for myself I have been afraid or reluctant to test my beliefs and at times I have been discouraged from testing my beliefs by Christians themselves (well meaning but perhaps misguided).

Onme Christian writer I have been reading lately sums up my present views.

Rev: Samuel Shoemaker

Eric H

Hello Machiavelli,

Faith requires action, if I believed there was a ten percent chance that God existed I probably would not do anything about it.

If I believed there was an eighty percent chance that God existed I might feel I should do something about it.

If I believed and was a hundred percent sure that God existed then I would definitely do something about it.

So the dilemma for theists is that they have to be a hundred percent sure without total proof.

The next question is possibly the most important question and that is if I have this total faith that God exists; what am I going to do? Faith has often driven people to extremes, either for good or evil.

peace

Eric

judge

Not really. Like any experiment one hypothesises and tests out the hypothesis. The more one tests it the surer one is.


This is exactly how science works also.