The Hopeful Skeptic

Nick Fiedler is the co-creator and co-host of the popular Nick & Josh Podcast, and I've been a fan of the show for several years. In his new book, "The Hopeful Skeptic: Revisiting Christianity From the Outside", Nick shares a remarkably honest struggle with his faith, which may have emerged too far from the center to still be considered an insider. Although, the word "struggle" might not be the best choice of words. Nick seems to be surprisingly at ease with the tension of being both a person of hope and skepticism. I'm encouraged by his ability to embrace these two labels. I can relate to them both.

People tend to write books after they have everything figured out, or at least when they've lived long enough to think that they do. It's refreshing to read a book by someone willing to share their ideas at the beginning of their journey, when they admit they don't have many concrete answers. Nick writes with the wisdom of someone who's had a few changes in perspective, and that is rare in a young writer. I wonder how much better most theological books might be if, like Nick, the author wrote assuming they'd probably change their mind in a few years. There might be fewer emphatic declarations, and less harsh criticisms of others. Nick's ability to hold on to his ideas loosely may be the best part of this delightful book. In a chapter titled "Flip-Flopper", he expresses this concept using a reference from one of my favorite movies.

In the movie Dogma, Rufus, supposedly the thirteenth (and only black) disciple suggests that "ideas" are preferable to "beliefs". His argument is that you can change an idea, and people won't kill or die for an idea the way they will for something labeled a belief. Hearing Rufus elaborate on that aspect of religion and theology was one of the most spiritually enlightening events of my life. Because we are all flip-floppers, so why not just label our beliefs "ideas"? That would make it easier for us to hold onto them in a way that would allow us to change them if we get new information at a later time, and gives us plenty of space to have "new" ideas. (pg.67)

It takes great courage to keep one foot in the culture of faith and the other dipping in the murky waters of skepticism. You can loose friends that way. I know first hand how how difficult it can be. I'm not sure how well this book will be accepted by either Christians or skeptics, but it feels comfortable to me. I've always enjoyed a bit of dissonance in my music, and I never liked movies with heroes who are too perfect, villains who are a little too easy to hate, and plots that tie up all the loose ends so I don't have to use my imagination. I loved this book and I guess I'm a hopeful skeptic also, but I'm not rushing out to get the tattoo.

It's Really All About God

It has been a joy to read Samir Selmanovic's wonderful new book, "It's Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian". If your idea of a good time is being told what you want to hear, then don't read this book. However, if you like to be challenged, and if you enjoy thinking outside the box, then this book will be a treasure.

Too often, progressive pleas for multi-cultural inter-faith dialogue just fall flat on their face. They can seem like a watered down version of political correctness. Samir is asking us for something much more substantive. Instead of simply exploring other faith traditions as a way toward shallow tolerance, Samir is suggesting that we learn to experience "the other" as a way to learn about ourself.

To say "God is a mystery", is too often used as a self-serving conversation stopper, effectively avoiding the task of addressing questions we don't yet know how to answer. We can keep our images of God safely unchallenged and protected from conclusions that might force us to concede the presence of God in people with whom we disagree. These questions, if entertained, might demand that we change our theologies, liturgies, and practices. The bondage of certainty can supplant the freedom of faith and make it impossible for us to say, "We don't know," "We apologize," "We want to change," and "what can we do to make things right?" - pg 11

One of my favorite chapters is called "The Blessings of Atheism". In this chapter, Samir shares the interesting story of his TWO weddings. Having been raised as an Atheist, his family was not happy about the idea of a Church wedding. His wife's Christian family was not particular excited about the idea of a wedding with what they considered to be the "twin evils of the world: alcohol and dancing". The result was back to back weddings (literally one day after the other). Surprisingly, Samir doesn't seem to be bitter about all of this. The experiences of Samir's life have given him a wonderful perspective that allows him to see the good in these different views of the world.

Atheism does not have to be the end of the mystical; it can be the beginning.

Religion does not have to be the opium of the people; it can be the poetry of the people.

Both faith and doubt are opposites of certainty and therefore part of the same whole that refuses to see all but the obvious. To end either of them would be to end imagination.

Faith imagines. And so does doubt.

We both have both.

And we are better together. - pg. 198

Samir Selmanovic on his new book

I'll be reviewing this book soon. Please check out Samir's website for more information.

Problems in the Script

Proper Confidence

A friend asked me to read Leslie Newbigin's "Proper Confidence". Reading this quote on the first page lured me in...

"The words liberal and fundamentalist are used today not so much to identify oneself as to label the enemy." pg. 1

That’s a wonderful observation!

Newbigin shines a critical light on the influence of Descartes in modern theology. I'm no fan of the dualism of Descartes that has plagued modernity, and it is Newbigin's criticism of Descartes that led me to engage with this book. However, I think Newbigin dislikes Descartes for all the wrong reasons. In addition, I'm not sure Newbigin wants to fully admit how much he draws from Descartes’ influence, namely substance dualism.

Newbigin begins with a description of dualism that has roots as far back as Plato, but was contextualized and cemented into modern thinking by Descartes. So far so good, but here's where his analysis derails. I think he is correct to critique the modern application of this dualism into what has become the “faith v. science divide”. However, for Newbigin, the problem is that science infringed on his own unquestionable presuppositions of faith. This book contains some confusion around the terms "science" and "modernity". They are not the same things. Modernity is a particular reaction to science. I'm on board with a critique of modernity, but not of science itself. He cries, "foul" by suggesting science has over stepped its boundaries, but he doesn't seem to realize that by declaring a boundary for science, he's adopted the same dualism that he hoped to overcome. This is precisely the mistake of Descartes and his followers, to divide the world into the realm of spiritual and the realm of science so that the ancient traditions could survive and even appear to be on equal footing as we move forward. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a more destructive blow for religion. By relegating religious language to some unknowable spiritual realm of alternate substances (dualistic embodied souls or “ghosts in the machine”), modern theologians struck a blow against that which they sought to save. Our way past modernity is not to call a truce in the modern battle by dividing the territory and going separate ways. I suggest that our best path is to move past the underlying dualism that created the war, even if it appears to give ground in the process.

Further clouding his argument, Newbigin uses the term "liberal" instead of "atheist" or "secular" to represent one far end of the spectrum. In my view, liberal theology is already a kind of middle ground position or "third way", and he may be skewing the readers perspective by reframing the boundaries to help his own view seem more centered or neutral.

In chapter 4, "Knowing God", I did appreciate Newbigin's concerns about an over reaching certainty that has plagued both sides of the modern coin (secularism and fundamentalism). Knowing is merely a feeling that we know. Placing too much confidence in our feeling of knowing is not helpful. The liberal and traditional theological camps are not on equal footing when it comes to claims about “knowing”. Newbigin overlooks some important difference between the two approaches. Though a completely objective “God’s eye view” may be unattainable, it is naive to suggest the two approaches are both equally subjective. He further illustrates this point by making the classic false dichotomy of modernist theology...

"The only possible responses to the claims the bible makes are belief or unbelief." pg 55

Newbigin falls victim to the modern presupposition that in order for the Bible to have any value, it must be read the same way we read a history book or science text book. He assumes the point of the bible is to believe its stories are facts or reject them as fiction. This view of the bible is precisely what fed fundamentalism and lured science into a war that it never intended to wage. I think there is a better way to move past that divide.

Newbigin tips his hat to Descartes by dividing up the playing field of human knowledge into the separate fields of observation and revelation. He goes to great length to point out the limits of human observation in order to leave space for revelation. But again, that simply serves to cement dualism rather than seeking to move beyond it. He seems perfectly happy dividing the field as long as we play nice and don't get in each other's way. That is a cordial move, but it is not truly a rejection of Cartesian dualism.

My biggest disappointment about this book is that it wasted such a great title. I love the term "Proper Confidence", but this book wasn't the critique on modernity's quest for confidence that I had hoped it would be. I do give Newbigin credit for identifying some key problems with the legacy of Descartes. I appreciate his suggestions for a softening of biblical literalism, and maybe his approach is a good first step. I think he asked some good questions and highlighted many important areas for inquiry. I agree with him that we should hope for a proper confidence in our intellectual discourse and that moving beyond the modern false dichotomy of "science or religion" is possible. I just don't think the way to do that is to use apologetic arguments to try and put science in its “place”. That approach may continue to isolate religion in an ever shrinking place of its own. I’m not willing to accept that result.

Sick for Profit

End Wall Street Run Health Care

Until a year ago, Wendell Potter was an executive at Cigna, the 3rd largest health insurance company. He risked his reputation by blowing the whistle on his industry and sharing the insider secrets used by insurance companies to deny care and spread fear based propaganda about the "horrors of government run health care" for the last 20 years. In a recent interview on PBS, he shares the detailed playbook of the political movement to block health care reform and preserve the insurance company's stranglehold on the lucrative American health care industry.

"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable, publicly accountable health care option as, quote, "government-run health care." What we have today, Mr. Chairman, is Wall Street-run health care that has proven itself an untrustworthy partner to its customers, to the doctors and hospitals who deliver care and to the state and federal governments that attempt to regulate it." - Wendell Potter

Everyone intersted in the public debate about health care should watch the whole interview online.

Silence on the Blogging Front...

Lately, I've been too preoccupied to blog and I'm not sure that will change anytime soon. After many years attempting to adopt a child, my wife and I finally have our little girl at home. I was beginning to doubt our decision to adopt instead of having children naturally, but the wait is finally over. Even though the paper work isn't finalized, we are enjoying our new challenge. Her name is Katie. She's an adorable 8 month old. She's had a rough start to life, but we are doing everything we can to turn that around.

"Doubt" - a Postmodern Epistemology

Brilliant movie! The best description I can think of is that it is a postmodern exploration of our sources for knowledge. The movie forces the viewer to ask questions about how we can "know" what it is we feel we "know". How do we come to "feel" certain? Is faith possible without doubt? Is doubt an act of faith? Is a search for truth a journey into the destruction of faith?

All of the performances are wonderful and each character helps us visualize a different foundation for epistemology. For some, our certainty remains in question until we acquire a particular level of evidence. For others, a declaration from some source of authority helps us claim to "know" with certainty. At times, we just can't locate the reasons why we feel so certain. These characters help us see that any search for truth is not a linear path from doubt to faith to certainty; it's more of a constant interplay between all three. In the end, the movie explores the risks we take when we attempt to locate truth, a search which demands a willful sacrifice of our certainty, a deconstruction of our faith, and a full embrace of our darkest doubts.

A few of my favorite lines from the movie...

"You just want things to be resolved so you can have simplicity back" - Sister Aloysius

"Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty" - Father Flynn

"It is unsettling to look at people with suspicion. I feel less close to God" - Sister James

"When you take a step to address wrongdoing, you are taking a step away from God" - Sister Aloysius

Julia Sweeney on God