In Defense of an Uncertain Faith
Over the course of my life, and exacerbated by my efforts at blogging, I’ve developed the bad habit of raising subversive questions in forums where I know I’ll get knee-jerk reactions and probably glares of disapproval. Were I any more sinister, I’d picture these intense frowning faces and grin like Montgomery Burns. My aim has usually not been subversive inquiry for its own sake—I wouldn’t want to be thrown in with the Sowers of Discord. No, my agenda—to use a sometimes insidious-sounding word—has almost always been to advance the course of thought, my own if no one else’s. Yes, occasionally I’ve wanted nothing more than to bang the drums of controversy, but I’ve only given in to this desire when it’s been sunny. Most of the time, I dabble in a little subversive reasoning because it can serve the pursuit of truth by keeping the mind in motion, open to treading, discovering, and making new routes, and always just a little bit dissatisfied with the established modes of thought and the established canon of accepted truths.
In my previous post, I wrote in opposition to a certainty that treats truth not as an object of pursuit, but rather as a horded possession. I didn’t think my saying this was particularly subversive, but, according to one commenter, I had run afoul of the truth. By speaking out against certainty, I had apparently spoken out, in a Pelagian voice, against the virtue of faith, which, according to a few theologies, is by definition certain. Aquinas wrote that the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives. The knowledge of faith is more certain than mere human knowledge. God is the most trustworthy of all possible authorities, and so if God says something is true, we can be certain something is true. In his book Dogmatic Theology for the Laity, which I hear was once a standard text for teaching the Catholic faith, Rev. Matthias Premm stated that the presuppositions upon which the Catholic faith—my faith—is based can be demonstrated with “scientific certitude.” Apologetics, “in strict scientific methodology,” proves: “Jesus was the true Son of God; he announced certain truths of revelation which are contained in the Scripture of the New Testament; he redeemed us by his death on the cross; he founded a Church and gave it the gift of infallibility in proclaiming his teaching throughout the centuries.” In taking a position against certainty, am I not standing against a long tradition of seeing certainty as an essential quality of true faith? Am I not at odds with my own faith tradition?
Trust me when I say that the answer is uncertain. Or rather, that some would say “Yes” and others would say “No.” What do I think? Kinda sorta, but not really. I’ll put it this way: the certainty of faith must always be preceded by epistemological uncertainty. First, I cannot know with certainty or prove beyond a doubt that God has actually revealed what self-defined religious authorities say he has revealed. How do I know about Jesus, salvation history, or the God-given mission of the church? A network of religious authorities and their writings. Their say so. That’s it. I either believe them or I don’t. I may find them credible, or not, but I cannot demonstrate the truth of what they say with anything outside the network of their authoritative texts. So while God would be the most trustworthy of all authorities, the people who claim to speak in his name are not God and do not share his degree of credibility. Second, I cannot know with certainty or presume that what I consider to be my faith is in fact true faith; it may be a delusion, perhaps the result of my psyche dealing with the dread of death or the absurdity of the universe.
So where does this uncertainty leave me? It’s possible, I suppose, that I do not have the gift of faith. Perhaps I lost it. Perhaps I never really had it. Perhaps these uncertainties would wash away if I truly lived the faith. But I doubt these possibilities are the case. Rather, I’m inclined to believe that faith is something I cannot presume to have. At most, I hope that I have faith and that my faith disposes me to see the world as it truly is. As I see it, faith is a journey in the dark, led by those who proclaim but cannot prove they know the way, guided by a light that may be the light of truth or possibly just a trick of the mind. And so we walk in darkness, hoping we’ve seen a great light.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Kyle,
How recently have you read The Grammar of Assent? I think Newman would be very helpful to you, as he begins from roughly the position you have been articulating here.
Shame on me: I have not yet read it.
No shame! I think you’d be surprised to see how non-foundationalist and, in one sense, skeptical, Newman is. You too have at least this in common.
I’ll definitely keep my eyes open for a copy.
Hey! Someone lent me a copy!
Kyle, I found your words on the other post and here as well, most edifying. I myself, grow deeper in faith by sinking into more of my uncertainty. For me, I find this leads me ultimately to a place of much greater faith. So much of this is in the paradox and what else can we do but love the questions, as Rilke said and follow Christ?
Well said, Fran. This is my hope.
Kyle, I have always liked the courage you exhibit in your writiing. In my life faith began with the realization that what formed me from nothingness lives in the unknown and unseen, consequently, darkness of the infinite universe. The realization that love is the source of creation and that I am made for that love was the “truth” that sustained me for 40 years after leaving Catholicism when I turned 18. For many reasons I have hated the use of the word authority and I have an aversion to dogma and being indoctrinated, it’s like brainwashing. The search in the darkness of uncertainty is where I have found the love that I have longed for. I am certain of that. In that story in Genesis when God separated the light from the dark, it seems that the delusion is that God is something that only can be known in the light of certainty because people fear the dark of uncertainty. God resides in the darkness of uncertainty calling us to risk losing ourselves in a pilgrimage of vulnerability rather clothing ourselves with robes, jestures, and phrases that mean absolutely nothing unless they are lived as Christ lived without a home and much of the time on the road to unknown people who desperately needed to be loved. I am rambling. I agree with everything you have written.
Thanks, Ronald. We’re pro-rambling here. ;-)
Read “The Case for God” by Karen Armstrong.
Our library had it, and I have checked it out. Thanks, Alex.
The Premm quote is absurd, of course, but if empirical proof is the standard for the certainty of faith, then I guess we’re all doomed to wander. I’m not a fideist, but I find there’s a great truth (though I can’t prove it empirically) in Pascal’s saying that “the heart has reasons that reason cannot know.” It seems to me that Christianity is fundamentally an encounter with Christ, an experience that is antecedent to dogmatic propositions or philosophical speculation. That experience is mediated by the sacraments in community, but also in prayer, nature, friendship, family love, and so on.
A professor of mine used to say that man’s existence is marked by three things: ambiguity, contingency, and finititude. If that’s true, then any certainty we may grasp, including the certainty of scientific proof, is conditional. Get used to it. It’s life and life only.
I had an “Are you nuts?” reaction to his use of “scientific,” but I figure he means something different by the term. Perhaps something akin to logical certainty, i.e., the conclusions follow from the premises.
I vote for reading Meister Eckhart first. And the Cloud of Unknowing is always good. Skip the Seer of Bayside though.
I’ve heard good things about him.
Kyle,
I think that I’ve mentioned this before: I think that your observations about the uncertainty of knowing a faith truth can be applied to almost any way we know things, except perhaps a mathematical proof where the premises are accepted as true solely for purposes of the proof. Any piece of knowledge we have — about current events, history, our own observations of the world, others’ observations of the world told to us, practically every truth of science — all are plagued in some way or another by the same uncertainties that you describe here. Can we really be certain that we are made up cells, that a star is a huge ball of gas, that Washington was the first president, that if I drink poison I’ll die, that’s it’s currently raining in Tokyo?
Thales, Are we made up of cells or something other than cells. What is a cell? One thing I do know about cells is that each cell contains hundreds of mitochondria whose job it is to provide nourishment and clean out waste. Without these mitochondria we are dead. The source of the DNA for mitochondria is women, not men. Truth always seems to reveal a hidden truth.
Ronald,
My point is that, generally for most of us, we only know that we are made up of cells on the say-so of a self-defined authority.
Thales, I agree with you. Sometimes, most of the time, without a filter my free association rambles from my fingers as well as my mouth. I hope I did not offend you.
Ronald,
There was no offense taken. I just wasn’t sure whether you were critiquing me or not, so I wanted to clarify.
Thales,
My epistemology has been called skepticism, but I prefer to think of it as suspicious. Anyhow, while much of what we know we know based on the say so of others, much of this knowledge is verifiable or falsifiable in a way that faith-based knowledge is not. Even here, of course, one can reasonably be suspicious. Scientific consensuses have been known to change.
I noted two ways in which the knowledge of faith must be uncertain: first, one knows it from the say so of self-defined religious authorities; second, one cannot ultimate know or presume that what one considers faith is truly faith and not something else. Do either of these apply to knowledge of the realities you mention?
first, one knows it from the say so of self-defined religious authorities; second, one cannot ultimate know or presume that what one considers faith is truly faith and not something else. Do either of these apply to knowledge of the realities you mention?
The first way is definitely the case for all the realities I mention. You only know that we are made up cells on the say-so of a self-defined authority on biology; that a star is a huge ball of gas on the say-so of a self-defined authority on astronomy; that Washington was the first president on the say-so of a self-defined authority on history; that if I drink poison I’ll die on the say-so of a self-defined authority on medicine; that’s it’s currently raining in Tokyo on the say-so of a self-defined authority on meteorology or journalism. If your friend comes in from outside and says “it’s raining out there,” you only know that it’s raining on his say-so and his self-defined authority of someone who was just outside. So how do we know these realities to be true? I think by a combination of trusting in the authority who told us, and confirming in our mind that the reality told to us makes sense, is not illogical, or corresponds to the other realities that we accept as true. Now for truths of the faith, most of them are historically based, and we have to trust those who saw the history and recorded it or passed it on to be recorded later — so we have the fact that there was a man named Jesus who said “I am the bread of life” and the fact that there was a man named Julius Ceasar who said “Veni, vidi, vici.” Which is more certain?
As for your second way, I’m not sure what you’re exactly saying, but I think it would apply to faith, because all of these ways of knowing I’ve described are based on trusting an authority, which is similar to faith.
If I remember correctly, during the natural law debate here on Vox Nova, you were questioning even the certainty of one’s own observations of the natural world, which is a full step closer in knowing truths because we don’t have to trust what someone tells us. So I guess my point is, sure, faith is uncertain in the ways you’re describing, but practically every truth we hold has similar uncertainties and you’ve expressed uncertainty about truths that are even more fundamental (that is, fundamental in how we come to know them, not fundamental in importance) than those of the faith.
A difference with these examples is that, theoretically, I could become an historian or medical scientist or astronomer and verify their claims, and, of course, others do just this. The authority in these disciplines is recognized based on the quality of work people do in these fields. An historian who constantly errs isn’t likely remain an authority.
Religious authorities, however, claim a God-given authority to speak on matters of faith and morals. Their authority may be recognized by a community of believers, but the authority isn’t recognized based on the quality of the work the authorities have done.
Kyle,
I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say “religious authorities” and the truths that they proclaim.
(1) If you’re talking about the truths of the Christian faith, many of the truths are historical claims just like Caesar saying “veni, vidi, vici”: e.g., that there was a man named Jesus, that he said “I am the bread of life,” that he did miracles, that he died and came back to life. These are historical truths just as real and just as open to investigation like any other historical truth. (Please investigate them, because if you investigate them and find them to be faulty, let me know, because I don’t want to be an adherent to the biggest hoax the world has ever seen.)
(2)If you’re talking about the truthfulness of some of the specific theological claims that Jesus made (that He is the Son, that there is a Father, that there is a Spirit, that his body is bread that gives everlasting life, etc.), then these are not historical truths, obviously — they’re non-historical theological truths spoken by Jesus, and those, admittedly, we either accept as true or not accept based on the authority of Christ Himself and who Christ claimed to be. So you’re right: for these truths, we can’t independently confirm that they are true (though we can independently attempt to disprove them as being contrary to reason — and again, if you find that they are contrary to reason, let me know, because I don’t want to be following a hoax.) For these truths, ultimately, we have to trust Christ.
(3) If you’re talking about the truthfulness of some moral claims, then they are just as open to investigation by natural reason (and able to argued to from natural reason) as any other moral claim — there is no need for divine revelation here.
When you speak about “religious authorities,” unless you’re referring to a true cult with a leader claiming direct Divine revelation, modern Christian leaders (whether Catholic or Protestant) don’t claim God-given authority to speak new revelations — they only claim authority to relay the truth that was first given by Christ 2000 years ago, and that claim of authority is derived directly from Christ making the promise that His Spirit will be with His church. So this means it goes back to what I said in the first paragraph: it comes down to whether we can trust Christ or not.
Kyle,
I really laughed when I read your clever sentence:”My epistemology has been called skepticism, but I prefer to think of it as suspicious.” LOL. Somehow it makes me think of something that Stravinsky was supposed to have said all the time — been told this by several music critics over the years — but I never can find it by Google searches. But anyways:
“I’m not religious; I’m superstitious.”" — Igor Stravinsky
ps. Stravinsky also became a devotee of Maritain!
Thales – To trust Christ, do we not first have to trust that the human authors who wrote about him wrote truthfully?
Thales – To trust Christ, do we not first have to trust that the human authors who wrote about him wrote truthfully?
Yes, exactly, that’s my point #1. In point #1, I said that the reporting of what Jesus said and did are historical truths just as real and just as open to investigation like any other historical truth. The Christian faith rests on historical truths — if Jesus didn’t really live, teach the words that are reported in the Gospels, do the miracles reported in the Gospels, and die and come back to life as reported in the Gospels, then we are following a hoax.
@Ronald King — That is very well said. Truth with a capital “T” is not attainable. But the ongoing, relentless pursuit of Truth IS attainable, provided we are willing to discard enough of the distractions which interrupt and sidetrack that pursuit.
Certainty is an abandonment of the essential quest that gives meaning to human existence.
During his Christian phase, Bob Dylan wrote a gospel tune that has a line in it that goes something like “I don’t care if the road is rough / Show me where it starts.” That is the attituded with which to begin the task.
” I know what you mean about being repulsed by the church when you have only the Mechanical-Jansenist Catholic to judge it by. I think that the reason such Catholics are so repulsive is that they don’t really have faith, but a kind of false certainty. They operate by the slide rule and the Church for them is not the body of Christ but the poor man’s insurance system. It’s never hard for them to believe because actually they never think about it. Faith has to take in all the other possibilities it can.”
Flannery O’Connor
“Faith means doubt. Faith is not the suppression of doubt. It is the overcoming of doubt, and you overcome doubt by going through it. The man of faith who has never experienced doubt is not a man of faith.”
Thomas Merton.
Magnificent quotes!
I, for one, very much enjoy your posts. The pursuit of truth cannot be subjugated to fear. We need courageous people who can ask the courageous questions in spite of the backlash. To me, you add great value by what you do.
Thanks, Dan.
I wonder how Maritain’s “The Degrees of Knowledge” applies to your inquiry Kyle. I have always wanted to read his book, but have yet to get around to it. Have you read it and does it broach this issue of certainty/uncertainy?
I have not, but thank you for the suggestion.
All you have said is good and well enough. My only caveat would be that in regards to a Christian faith proposition; in the end we are objectifying love. Even that is fine for a lifetime if necessary, but at some time we must emerge with with a yes or no to the lover.
Here I would say that denial and affirmation do not require absolute epistemological certainty.
“The greatest myth or misunderstanding (about the true
nature of the Catholic Church) is imagining the church
as having all the answers or accusing the church of
thinking that it has all the answers. The first view
is idolatrous; the second, as superficial as the view
it rejects. The church lives by faith, not by answers.
So, of course, must its members: They must take the
risk of faith and not seek another security.”
Rev. James Dallen
theology professor
Kyle writes, “So while God would be the most trustworthy of all authorities, the people who claim to speak in his name are not God and do not share his degree of credibility.”
Not only that, but even if God spoke to you directly, you could not prove that it was actually God speaking, as opposed to an illusion. The only one who could know for sure that it was God, is God, since only he could know with absolute certainty that the being speaking to you is, among other things, omniscient.
For me (speaking off the top of my head since I don’t have a lot of time to analyze it), I think I start with something like Pascal’s Wager: Either Christianity is true or it’s not. You’ve got to bet on one or the other.
Knowing that only God can have absolute certainty on the subject, I don’t even try for that. Instead I look at whether it appears more likely that Christianity is true or that it’s false.
Having examined other theories of life, I find that none of them explains life as well as Christianity. I find Christian doctrines to be satisfying intellectually. I observe the changes wrought in people I know through prayer and eventual conversion. And obviously I look at the changes wrought in myself. I look at the contrasts, in general, between those who live in accordance with Christian teachings and those who don’t. I look at the great minds who have embraced Christianity throughout the ages.
In short, I weigh faith against non-faith, and I find faith to be more likely, so I go with it. And then, having gone with it for 20+ years, my experience of living it has reinforced it to the point where I am virtually certain of its truth. This in turn reinforces my belief that the Church is what it claims to be, that it’s neither deluded nor wickedly deceitful, but is in fact the Church of God.
This mirrors my own experience, Agellius. I also find the early Christian martyrs to be credible witnesses.
Kyle writes, “This mirrors my own experience, Agellius. I also find the early Christian martyrs to be credible witnesses.”
Except that you don’t seem to have reached the same level of certainty that I have as a result of living the faith for 20+ years. (It could be that you have in fact, I’m just going by what you’ve written.) What do you suppose the difference is in your experience versus mine?
Agellius – I don’t know enough about your experience to make a comparison. Time and experience seems to have moved you from going with the likely to sticking with the certain, and I can understand this, as falsity would likely fail you at some point. For my part, Ive moved from going with the likely to going with the less likely to again going with the likely. And so on and so forth. Overall, I have less certainty now than I did ten and twenty years ago, but I wouldn’t say I have less faith. I may have stronger faith because I continue to choose the way of Christ and the way of the Church, even though the perspective of faith makes less sense to me now than it did when I was younger.
@Agellius–
And what do you have to say about other people who could say exactly what you’ve just said, only with reference to another faith?
Rodak:
I don’t necessarily say anything. What, specifically, do you want to know?
I think I understand what he’s getting at, as the point also occurred to me.
You begin with a reference to Pascal’s wager and then conclude with the statement:
“In short, I weigh faith against non-faith, and I find faith to be more likely…”
This reasoning shares the most notorious flaw of the wager, though: it assumes only two possibilities. It doesn’t describe how one arrives at a particular faith. Or how one can compare and contrast different faiths’ claims to truth, given that one is likely to have vastly greater intimate knowledge of their own faith, in principle and especially in practice.
Whoops, did not notice that the conversation had already been continued in a separate thread, below.
Hazemyth writes, “This reasoning shares the most notorious flaw of the wager, though: it assumes only two possibilities.”
Don’t faith and non-faith cover all possibilities? Either I believe the Christian faith or I don’t — not believing it encompasses the possibility that other faiths are true.
You write, “It doesn’t describe how one arrives at a particular faith.”
I weigh the evidence for believing it versus the evidence for not believing it. And, I did describe how I arrived at belief in this particular faith.
You write, “Or how one can compare and contrast different faiths’ claims to truth, given that one is likely to have vastly greater intimate knowledge of their own faith, in principle and especially in practice.”
At the time I was weighing faith versus non-faith, I didn’t have any faith at all. So I did not have any particular faith of which I had greater intimate knowledge than other faiths.
I think it’s fallacious to say (if this is what you’re saying) that you can’t decide whether something is worthy of belief until you have tried and rejected all other possibilities. For example, I have no strict proof that my mom is my mother. I accept it as a fact because the evidence to which I have access makes it more likely than its contrary. I feel no need to investigate whether any other woman is my mother, let alone all other women who exist. Until I have some strong reason to doubt the truth of my belief, this is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
How would an objective third party be able to determine which (if either) of you has the true faith?
Rodak writes, “How would an objective third party be able to determine which (if either) of you has the true faith?”
It seems like you’re going back to the idea that faith is subject to proof, but it’s not. Faith is called an act of the will, because it’s basically a decision to place your trust in a certain authority. If it were subject to proof then it would be an act of intellect and not of will.
It’s true that the decision to place your trust in the Church’s revelatory claims is based on evidence (although since faith is a gift of God’s grace, he may simply give it to some people independent of the evidence). And there may be evidence of the truth of other claims to faith, since after all, every religion contains some truth, as the Church has acknowledged.
If two people wanted to compare the evidence for their respective faiths, they could certainly do that, and people do it all the time. And doing so has sometimes resulted in conversions, in both ways.
Does that answer your question?
Yes. Thank you.
Kyle,
I have little time for “blind faith.” In my experience, blind faith is often also deaf faith and dumb faith. I’m with the boy’s father in Mark 9 who says, “I believe. Help my unbelief.”
Another excellent blog post. Thank you.
Paul
Well said, Paul. Thank you.
I don’t even know what “blind faith” is. What exactly does that refer to?
“I don’t even know what “blind faith” is. What exactly does that refer to?”
Yes, you do:
“Faith is called an act of the will, because it’s basically a decision to place your trust in a certain authority.”
I would say “blind faith” is faith divorced from reason, faith without a minimal sense of where one is going may be going, or faith that amounts to an unthinking trust in an authority.
Rodak:
Since I have explained (though not exhaustively) my reasons for placing my trust in the authority in which I place it, I don’t see what’s blind about it.
If placing your trust in an authority is the criteria for blind faith, then the vast majority of everything everyone knows is based on blind faith. When you think you know what’s going on in Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s only because you are taking someone’s word for it who claims to be reporting from there — and who, in turn, is largely repeating stuff that he was told by others. When you think you know what quantum mechanics is (though you may not be an expert in it), you are taking someone’s word for it who claims to have studied it or made discoveries. Only a tiny sliver of your knowledge has been discovered by yourself, with no intermediaries in whom you have decided to place your trust providing the information on which your knowledge is based.
Kyle writes, “I may have stronger faith because I continue to choose the way of Christ and the way of the Church, even though the perspective of faith makes less sense to m e now than it did when I was younger.”
It sounds like you’re less able to make internal, intellectual sense of it than you were before, yet still choose to place your trust in the authority that is the Church, and believe and obey it. Does that mean your faith is blinder now than it was before?
Oh snap!
I would say no, actually. While faith makes less sense to me now than it used to, I think about it more these days, both in general and regarding its particular claims. Maybe that’s the problem.
Kyle writes, “Oh snap!”
LOL. I hope you understand that I’m not trying to pick on you, but just trying to get a handle on where you’re at. Which I believe was the point of your post anyhow.
Kyle writes, “While faith makes less sense to me now than it used to, I think about it more these days, both in general and regarding its particular claims.”
Just to make sure I understand you, are you saying that nowadays, you still place your trust in the Church as a teaching authority, and in the truth of her teachings, as much as you ever did, even while having more trouble getting your head around it?
In a roundabout way, maybe. Let’s say I give the Church the benefit of the doubt.
Kyle writes, “In a roundabout way, maybe. Let’s say I give the Church the benefit of the doubt.”
Well, that’s interesting. I often make the argument that if you believe the Church is what she says she is, then you should have no problem assenting to her teachings. You are in fact required to assent to her teachings, despite any intellectual difficulties you may be having. I believe the idea is to assume that she knows better. If you can’t make that assumption, then you really don’t have faith. If you only assent to those things with which you have no intellectual (or other) difficulties, then you fit the classic definition of a cafeteria Catholic.
But the interesting question, which you have brought to my attention, is the extent to which one’s faith in the Church *should* solve one’s intellectual difficulties about her teachings. If you accept that her teachings are from Christ, why isn’t that enough to remove difficulties? I’m not saying it necessarily is. But if Christ were standing in front of you, and telling you that, for example, artificial birth control is opposed to his Father’s will, would that not dispose of the issue? Who would know better what is in accord with the Father’s will and what isn’t? And if it’s opposed to the Father’s will, what more do we need to know about it? We can try to understand it for academic reasons, but we don’t need to, especially if there are more pressing issues where our understanding really matters for practical reasons.
I suppose then I might be accused of having blind faith. But I don’t agree that it’s blind. If understanding the reasons for the immorality of birth control were necessary before one could assent to its being immoral, then assenting without understanding might validly be called blind (though really, I don’t think assent would even be possible in that scenario). But in that case morality would rest on human reason alone, and the Church’s moral teaching would be unnecessary. The function of the Church with regard to morals is to inform us that God has *revealed* that such-and-such is immoral.
Therefore the only question is whether God has in fact revealed it. If God’s having revealed it doesn’t dispose of the issue, then one really doesn’t have faith. I think that’s one of the central teachings of Christianity, if not the primary one: That Christ was willing to suffer and lay down his life rather than disobey his Father’s will in the slightest thing, and that to be his disciples we need to follow in his steps in precisely that respect.
This doesn’t mean that we can’t try to understand the Church’s (i.e. Christ’s) teachings, and in fact it’s been the Church’s mission to do so throughout its history. Only that our assenting to them rests not on our having figured them all out, but on our faith in the Church who has taught them — which in turn, of course, rests on our faith in Christ.
To the extent that our belief rests on our own reason, I think there must always be doubt since conclusive proof does not exist. Therefore where doubt persists, I suspect one is trying to establish belief on his reason alone (or primarily).