I don't usually engage in online debates, but when otherwise intelligent and accomplished people take to name-calling, it's hard not to. And in the case of Daniel Dennett, who accuses me of "spin doctoring" because I reject his tendentious and polarizing definitions of faith and doubt, I have no real choice.
This is not about me, though. I am angered by anyone, whether from the secular side or the religious side, who confuses dogma with faith, telling people that they must either believe in one specific way or give up on the notion of faith altogether. That false dichotomy forms the basis of both Dennett's recent study of clergy who have "lost their faith," and the thinking of those spiritual leaders who buy into that dangerous and needless dichotomy and therefore chose to participate in the research.
Let's start with the fact that contrary to what many of us were taught and what underlies Dennett's study, doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is a part of faith. In fact, the faith journeys of virtually all great spiritual teachers included moments of genuine doubt.
Of course, that level of nuance is lost on Dennett and all those who simply want pat answers to strengthen that which they already believe. How else could the professor end the article, which includes his name-calling, with the following:
We hope our presentation of these pioneers will encourage others to tell us their stories, so that the world can know something more about this phenomenon, which can only grow in importance as more and more religious leaders confront the flood of ideas and information that we in the developed world are swimming in today.
I guess anyone who doesn't share a polarized understanding of faith and doubt is drowning in a lack of development. But don't worry; we are in very good company.
From Abraham and Moses to Jesus and so many more, wrestling with doubt is one of the ways in which good people become great spiritual masters. And far from having an obligation to "protect" congregants from doubts and questions of faith, clergy are obliged to share those issues with those they lead.
You see, while it may not be true that those without a faith need one, it is demonstrably true that people of faith must have questions and doubts. Otherwise their faith becomes a static, lifeless, self-serving, and often dangerous doctrine.
Without doubts about the current state of faith, Abraham would not have broken his father's idols and popularized ethical monotheism. Without a loss of faith in the religious status quo of the first century, Jesus would not have taken on either the Pharisees and priests or the Roman Empire. And without genuine doubts about the value of the desert deities worshiped by his own tribe, Muhammad would not have created Islam.
Doubts and questions are the seedbed of spiritual renewal. They are the vehicles for clarifying one's faith and for maintaining personal integrity. If one's faith is nothing more than a source of static answers, it quickly becomes a mindless rhetoric with God as its footnote. That is hardly what most of us who subscribe to any faith believe in.
The challenge for clergy, not to mention any person of faith, lies in admitting the doubts and questions without turning them into new articles of faith which demand the denigration of the previously held beliefs. When the latter happens, the clergy should relinquish their pulpit.
Religious leaders should not use the pulpit to simply hammer away at the very ideas that people come to have affirmed, but neither should they shy away from leading people in the evolution of their own faith. That, too, is a failure of leadership which should lead to their relinquishing the pulpit.
Responsible religious leaders must find a balance between helping their congregants to wrestle with tough questions and offering them secure answers. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said it best when he remarked that "the purpose of religion is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted".
Applied here, that teaching translates into a demand that spiritual questions and doubt afflict the spiritually certain while spiritual answers and faith offer security to the afflicted.
Follow Brad Hirschfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradhirschfield
Brandon G. Withrow: Questions Can Set the Truth Free
Rev. Peter M. Wallace: Can the Question That Troubles Our Faith Really Be Answered?
Kent Annan: Embrace Your Crisis of Faith
Rabbi Arthur Waskow: Isaiah and Subersive Prayer: Thoughts for Yom Kippur
-------
Sounds like what politics.
-------
But isn't that what you claimed above that Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Mohamed did? Their doubt in the status quo led them to, if not denigrate existing beliefs, at least render them false. If I was heavily vested in the status quo, I'd see that as denigrating.
You wrote later that clergy should help their faith evolve, but you'd already praised those four horsemen the salvation (my term) for completely tearing up the status quo and starting anew. Maybe Dennett is destined to become a "great spiritual master".
I couldn't be a good christian because I had plenty of questions and nobody willing to talk with me.
I can't help wondering how many adults have learned to silence their own questions, and think they can hide their own insecurities and prove their beliefs by attacking others......
I just discovered this site, and I think it might be the answers to your questions not only about being a Christian but also Christianity in general:
www.the2012countdown.com
The atheist thinks about evaluating a kind of THEORY--a theory of the supernatural. He immediately jumps to "Is it true?" and "Where's the proof?" But real religion isn't a theory.
The serious religious person only doubts whether his personal path is leading in the right direction. He takes it for granted that life can be meaningful; this is not like having a theory about the world, but a direct intuition about human nature. "God"-language pertains to the realization of the meaningfulness one intuits. It isn't speculation but rather a poetic medium for conveying existential experience, for passing down wisdom across generations.
Doubt and wonder are so central to religion that God Himself is pictured as wondering:
…and also the Holy One, blessed be He, will join them in wondering [at evil], as it is written: Thus said the Lord of hosts: That it may be wondrous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, so too shall it be wondrous in My eyes.
— (B.Talmud Sukkah 52)
I wouldn't go that far. I consider myself a serious religious person and I have personally wondered at times if there really even is "a direction". The doubt goes straight to the heart of things until our reason and contemplation on things pulls us back around. I am not alone in the experience. I know many, many people who have felt the same thing.
I would agree with the rest of what you said however. Very well put.
Did I blow your mind?
In the Bible God changes his mind, argues with humans (and loses!), regrets his past mistakes...
Doubts and questions are the seedbed of spiritual renewal. They are the vehicles for clarifying one's faith and for maintaining personal integrity. If one's faith is nothing more than a source of static answers, it quickly becomes a mindless rhetoric with God as its footnote. That is hardly what most of us who subscribe to any faith believe in.
Why are doubts not the seedbed of deciding that one's faith is falsely based. If doubt is something that can increase faith, can it not also decrease it? I don't really want to repeat the evident sin of the individual who confused faith and dogma, but if they are separate, why cannot one do away with dogma and wrestle with the issue of faith.
As for why we need religious leaders -- or leaders of any kind -- this again has to do with human nature and with the fact that children have to be educated. Whether the representatives of religious institutions actually embody the moral wisdom they are charged with transmitting remains an open question.
"Brad Hirschfield says that "Responsible religious leaders must find a balance between helping their congregants to wrestle with tough questions and offering them secure answers." In other professions that is known as spin doctoring."
The way I read that is that Dennett is saying that following Hirschfield's advice in the quote would be "spin doctoring" by the person doing it, not that he is saying that Hirschfield is a spin doctor.
But I'll have to admit that seeing Hirschfield put that kind of "spin" while leaving it up to the reader to follow the link to see what Dennett actually said doesn't surprise me, as he seems in the other articles of his I've read here to have few qualms about spinning things and being disingenuous in his arguments. Perhaps he doth protest too much about being labeled a spin doctor?
But hey, it's all for the greater glory of God, and we know that's a '"get out of ethical binds free" card.
Michael
We know faith because we know doubt.
For an intelligent guy, Daniel "nuance is lost on him" Dennett is amazingly clueless when he speaks on religious topics.
You are completely correct that there is no faith without doubt. I struggled with my faith for a very long time. I finally gave it up. But I have no patience for the ignorant rants of the Dennetts, Hitchens and Dawkins of the world.
Jesus, the Christ, part of the holy trinity, doubted himself. To expect less from someone with only the poorly written bible to go on to not have doubts 2,000 years later goes beyond dogma, into psychosis.
Jesus, the Christ, part of the holy trinity, doubted himself. To expect less from someone with only the poorly written bible to go on 2,000 years later goes beyond dogma, into psychosis.
(Ability to write in english has returned)
First of all, faith actually is the opposite of doubt. While you are having 3% doubt, you are having 3% less faith. Now if your doubt is 100% and it never lets up, you are an atheist. That's who Dennett was studying.
I suppose it makes you feel better to say I am "drowning in a lack of development" or I'm incapable of understanding nuance. But the name-calling simply does not change the dictionary definition of faith.
Here's another way of looking at it. I know (and you do too) that it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, and hurt another's feelings. I NEVER have doubt that these are bad things (I certainly hope you don't either). Notice how silly it sounds to say my unwavering belief that murder is bad is "mindless rhetoric." Because my moral code doesn't change, would you really characterize it as "a static, lifeless, self-serving, and often dangerous doctrine"?
People only have doubt about religion's superstitions. That's what's wrong with religion. In order for religious people to be moral, they have to have faith in some pretty silly things. Why not give up the silly parts--you know, the part that causes all that doubt?
"Doubts and questions are the seedbed of spiritual renewal. They are the vehicles for clarifying one's faith and for maintaining personal integrity. If one's faith is nothing more than a source of static answers, it quickly becomes a mindless rhetoric with God as its footnote. That is hardly what most of us who subscribe to any faith believe in."
Doubts and questions are the seedbed of rational thought. Rationalization is the vehicle for clarifying one's doubts and maintaining personal integrity. I couldn't have said the next line better so I'll leave it as it is. Quite honestly, I'm pretty sure that "mindless rhetoric" is usually comes out of the mouths of those who subscribe to any faith. They are not encouraged to reason, they are encouraged to belief. They have to engage in "mindless rhetoric" because there is no rational basis for their beliefs.